Search results

Hmm, is a NDA still valid if the other party is very badly misrepresenting (or flat out lying about) what went on under the NDA?

Sun fought the GPL, then finally admitted defeat.

Smiteworks licenses aren't affected by WotC's OGL decisions, but at the same time Doug is publicly stating support for the ORC. https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?76394-SmiteWorks-Official-Statement-about-OGL-1-1-and-Open-Gaming-Licenses&p=674003#post674003

No, that is a trademark case, that the people violating it are horrible is really a sideshow of it.

Until they release their new OGL v2 we won't know. But yes, sounds like complete bollocks to me.

This is EXACTLY how the GPL and FOSS concepts work.

Technically it hasn't even been a month, publicly that is. It sure as hell feels longer though.

Also watch this interview :)

Ryan went into their thinking on the CC when they were making the OGL. Basically it was that you could get too fiddly with the CC license and there were too many ways people would assume that it was released under the most permissive combination.

Maybe PCGen?

Azora Law already represents a lot of publishers and Brian Lewis works there who is the person who wrote the original OGL.

Copyrighted, (or possibly Intellectual Property), not patented.. :)

Well WotC already showed the 3pp what they thought and intended to do.

WotC IS a party to the contract, one of the main considerations that they recieve from the contract is that they are ALSO free to use anyone elses OGC in future book (just like everyone else who agrees to the contract.) They have done this twice, UA & MM3. The fact that they have chosen NOT to...

I'm pretty sure that the SCO v IBM was the case that I'm thinking of. I tried in my free time today to find the original post where I gathered that info from.

I pointed that out to him in a tweet, with a relevant webarchive link to a interview with Dancey BEFORE the license was released.

I mean that lawyers gloss over how hard it is for the layman be certain that they ARE within the bounds of copyright. It's because they are experts and involved in the minutia so sometimes they make sweeping statements like Kate did from EFF in that all they have to do is follow copyright laws...

Except that the GPL v2 WAS ruled on that the intent of the license was to be irrevocable. Irrevocable was added to later licenses so that it couldn't be re-litigated

One of the big selling feature of the OGL was that you didn't NEED to keep a lawyer on retainer to make sure you understood and were using the copyright laws correctly. One of the things that I find most annoying when people just say use copyright laws, is that to the vast majority of people, it...

The EFF article isn't comparing them to the licenses of the day either, (GPL 2.0) which did NOT have the irrevocable in the license and was ruled that it was perpetual and irrevocable.