Search results

Note, this was from BEFORE the OGL and SRD was made. The original idea was going to be that the PHB, DMG, and the MM were themselves the SRD and there by OGC.

I wonder if Kate Walsh had taken into account that the OGL was written with the GPL in mind (per an interview with Ryan hosted on wizards.com) where explicitly compared them.

I was referring to your statement that "only Wizards can decide how to use it" in that OGL: Commercial licensees (not non-commercial) Creator B has to be able to license their OWN copyrighted Licensed Material to Creator C, without Creator A getting pissy about it. Because I can NOT imagine a...

Somebody dug up this gem. :) https://web.archive.org/web/20160203052926/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd%2Fmd%2Fmd20020228e

Yes, I should have clarified I did mean the commercial license (since there may or may not be having two going forward). WotC stating that you CAN'T relicense your OWN copyrighted material is completely mindblowing. That would be tantamount to saying that you do not have copyright to your own...

That is quite possibly literally the only thing I like from the leak. I suggested something very similar to the license person (Scott Rouse, I think?) in the run-up for 4e. Because otherwise you get Sec. 15 bloat, and this helps identify who the original author was.

All we know currently, is that it wasn't released on the schedule they expected.

This is incorrect, Creator C can't use your "Licensed Content" without a separate contract with Creator B. Creator A of course being WotC, that both B & C are using WotC's Licensed Content. according to how I read it.

Hmm, I wonder if I kept my copies somewhere...

The OGL was supposed to be read and understood by laypeople. This appears to be another departure from what has been.

I'm still catching up, so I'm about 8ish hours behind but wanted to ask this now so I didn't forget it by the time I did get caught up (damn ADD brain). :) They will HAVE to release an update to the SRD v5.1, ie v5.2 or v5.5 etc because the same content can NOT be licensed under two...

I know the people that took the program from the back of the PHB and made eTools from it. They have said that the original program was in NO WAY ready for public release.

That is the Open Gaming Foundation that Ryan started. But it never really went anywhere. Maybe it will now. :)

And the tie in that the OGL is modeled after quite a few other Open Source licenses, which themselves haven't really been tested in court, these are indeed "interesting times".

Quite possibly the best result of this whole issue is that the OGL may be actually be tested in court.

I'd be interested to her Ryan's and David Kenzer's takes on this. AFAIK we haven't seen anything from David, Ryan did update the https://opengamingfoundation.org/ though.

Except mechanic's can neither be copyrighted nor OGC, the expression of them can (which is where the OGL cam into play) But the mechanic's themselves can't

It's a bit about trademarks and trade dress IIRC.

Here's the problem I have with them attempting to "deauthorize" v1.0 or v1.0a. IF they thought they could do this, why didn't they attempt it with the 4e GSL debacle? Once they saw where Pathfinder was going they would have had no issue doing that then. And plus the "leak" is, badly worded is a...

<Insert shocked face here>