Search results

This is a very important point: Paizo had produced great product for WotC for many years and then were cut loose without a lot of notice. And, the reason why Paizo produced that great product for WotC was because WotC didn't want to do it themselves, so they hired out for the job. joe (all of...

Thanks for taking the time for that! joe b.

Hrm...

It wouldn't be the first time. :D But, in this case regarding the use of singular it's not referring to a person or an entity, but to a particular collection of documents that contained only OGC: the SRD. But as is obvious, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll bow to your knowledge of community convention...

And while we're talking about potential grammar minutiae, consider also that the words "System Reference Document" and the abbreviation "SRD" are always used in the singular as well. There have been several SRDs, and the one that 1.1 is referencing is always stated to be the most-recent one (I...

I don't know if that's the case. Every usage of 1.0(a) in the document is in the singular, not the plural. joe b.

That may have happened, but I do not know. I have no idea why I thought what I thought, but it looks like what I thought was wrong. joe b.

Thanks for correcting me! I've edited my initial post since my memory served me wrong. joe b.

Edited as my memory served wrong. joe b.

Question: if you "can't see any pathway to an argument that says that Matt can lose the right from WotC at their whim and yet his sub-licensing to you is irrevocable" doesn't that mean that every license is a license and that there are no sub-licenses? And yet sub-licenses are explicitly...

Maybe I'm suspicious but I'm getting a "we're making it intentionally opaque" feeling. joe b.

I'm seeing this in (non-commercial) VIII. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated. A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. and this in...

Yep. There's even ambiguity there. When I got to WotC I only see see 5e content as SRD content. 🤷‍♂️ joe b.

Sorry! joe b.

Here it is, apparently. (Sourced from ) joe b.

I concur. I don't find much value in analogies when discussing the OGL issues at hand as one can simply discus the thing directly without using analogies. joe b.

Well that makes Section 4 look that much more important. "4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." joe b.

Any of those motives are speculation. It could also as easily be as "seeks to limit any gaming company from becoming too successful" or "seeks to use those limits to find suitable company ideas for acquisitions." The motives are speculation, informed speculation certainly, but still speculation...

I disagree. The motive or goal for rent-seeking behavior does not negate that it is rent-seeking behavior any more than the reason for driving a car negates that one is driving a car. For instance, one could easily postulate that the rent-seeking is also done to keep competition at a level low...

IMO, it is not necessarily to kill a business that gets to large, but to rent-seek off of them so that WotC's competitor's growth is extremely limited by the rent they're forced to pay to WotC past that threshold. It's not supposed to kill competition, it's supposed to transfer competition...