Search results

Not just "hateful". Anything that is "that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" (most of which have very vague, if any, legal definition). But it doesn't even have to be in the content of your product. The license can be terminated if you "engage in conduct that is...

Oh, and yes, this is still a game system license, explicitly bound to Wizards of the Coast and D&D, and not an open gaming license. The naming remains deceptive and untrue, and using it to de-authorize 1.0a is questionable at best since it is not an update to the original license.

Most likely because that's the part that is most un-copyrightable (and thus they risk the least), while also being something that generally should be taken as a whole (which is where CC works best), and being an existing and known licensing system that is entirely out of their control, and thus...

Aside from the fact that the morality clause is still hugely problematic, and absolutely should not be there, no, you don't need to de-authorize 1.0a in order to make use of it. If you want to "add protection" in 1.2 against hateful content, then that means you personally vouch for the "safety"...

So, on the morality clause: An example of the problematic nature of such things is a story from just yesterday, of a streamer (very progressive/left wing) being banned from TikTok for a clip of a Twitch stream where he was explaining some details about Black Live Matters. It was banned for...

Ars Technica posted a follow-up article, discussing the ORC and publishers' reactions: https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/game-makers-stage-mass-exodus-from-dungeons-dragons-open-license/

Wait, you can access the SRD via git? Point me at the repository! Forks and pull requests ahoy! /s Edit: Actually, doing a search on github, I find this repo — GitHub - Zireael07/awesome-tabletop-rpgs: Awesome list of free and/or open source tabletop RPGs — which lists tons of freely licensed...

Some interesting thoughts. Mixing in with stuff I've seen on YouTube channels, like Tod's Workshop or Shadiversity, my thoughts on design: First, four general types of armor: padded cloth, leather (either advanced cloth or with metal plates [brigandine]), chain, and plate. -- Plate does great...

But how many of them would predict the level of backlash that occurred when the community found out about it? If the outcry was small and easily outlasted, and they didn't sign the 15% royalty deal, they'd be stuck with the even more horrible 25% deal. I would not be surprised if some signed...

My view is that "authorization" can only be considered a positive action. As @Tazawa pointed out, draft versions were not authorized. Only when an acceptable version was written was it deemed authorized. So "authorized" means, "We accepted this as a valid license that we were willing to mark...

TechDirt also has an article: WotC Makes Major Changes To D&D OGL License, Sends Community Into A Frenzy TechDirt is a site that focuses heavily on intellectual property and civil rights issues, from a legal and constitutional perspective. They were also the ones that originally coined the term...

Not a d100? I wanna see the "gets turned into a potted plant" result!

Hey! They changed 1.1 to 2.0! Fixed one of the things that was bugging the heck out of me. Thanks. Now they just need to remove "Open" from the name.

No guarantee the Twitch stream was the actual announcement video. It might have been part of their normal schedule that they cancelled because of the OGL video. Still don't know where the video is supposed to show up, though.

It would be one of the commercial licenses (which is the default). It's not clear if the OGL requires that any released content by the publisher also be released as OGL, and the manner in which it splits open content and product identity means that probably wouldn't work anyway. So most...

I really, really hate when people try to post serious commentary on Twitter. 53 tweets for this. It'll take a bit to work through.

Unfortunately, the public domain is fraught with uncertainty. There are legal arguments that you can't voluntarily put something into the public domain, if you hold the copyright for it. Part of the point of licenses like the GPL is to bypass that uncertainty by using the existing copyright...

Morality clauses should absolutely not be in any open license. An open license is usable by anyone for any content, and the point is to share that content with other people, for any purpose. This is both an onerous tax on the licensees, with the massive uncertainty about what some other person...

IANAL, but the EFF post earlier today suggests, "No." Not that there might not be issues, even given EFF's argument, but at the very least I wouldn't worry about it over-much. Morrus, of course, has to worry more about it, but it's not an issue that general users need to get hung up on.

The part I quoted in my post: Section IX (Warranties and Disclaimers), article J, on page 13. Now, what constitutes "separate entities", and what qualifies as employees deciding to create their own company, is probably up for some legal wrangling, but in general, what you're saying is exactly...