Search results

From my understanding the PI mechanism isnt just about specifying things that is not covered by the license. It defines a domain you cannot use in your work trough other mechanisms than licensing. In other words you cannot for instance use those under a "fair use" claim. Can CC really do that...

If you want to "produce something for 5ed" that is neither reproducing nor deriving anything, then you wouldn't need any license at all? Noone is preventing you from publishing fully original work, and including the notice "This is intended for use with 5e" or similar. No need for any CC for...

Dustin_00's reply addresses the intended benefit of ORC over OGL 1.0a. Listing the benefits of ORC over CC would likely look very different, but if we assume it in effect try to do the same things as OGL1.0a it would include things like: More convenient use from multiple sources. SA default...

I think using OGL1.0a is likely going to be quite fine, and still by far the most convinient way of releasing material for D&D going forward. There are a couple of new considerations to make though: 1) Ideological. There is likely to be a period of tension between ORC and OGL as competing...

Hi! I just wanted to clear the air a bit and clarify that I think I fully agree with the main sentiment and idealistic background of your post. My disagreement seem to be mainly a concern regarding practicalities as to best achieve those. As a software engineer with a "fetish" for rules and law...

The problem is the no longer authorized issue. As this appear to be some perversion of section 9 related to wizards power to make new versions, it is beyond me how anything ever being released under any version of ogl will not somehow fall in under possible nonsensical but highly dangerous...

No. I seriously hope WotC get their punishment. The punishment taking the form of a lasting severely reduced market share. Keep trying new systems! Support ORC rather than dmGuild, or whatever scheme will come for their exclusive vtt access! If wizards really want to repent, and diminish their...

Yes, this is exactly my point :) Words do matter! I actually think we more or less completely agree! I saw your list when you first posted it, and thought it was a great and higly reasonable list of requests. And I also agreed both then and now that at least something of that magnitude would be...

They control the canon. There are lots of DMs that at least didnt allow 3rd party products. There will be slight variations in the new updates that make tooling based on 5.1 seem slightly off, and this will help guiding preople into the only platform providing the full official sanctioned oneD&D...

I disagree with the "demands" of this post. ORC should be finished and embraced. If this happens I dont think any of the requested actions from wizards is in any way "neccessary". Ogl 1.0b is something that actually might be counterproductive, as some might be tempted to use that when they...

I would say this is not the case for open licensing schemes. The problem is that cross-licensing is pain. Share Alike make it worse. It is much simpler for everyone if only one licensing scheme is at play. For instance using OGL1.0a released material in works that want to release things under...

My understanding is that OGL is convenient in that it defaults game mechanical stuff to be open, while the more "fluffy" stuff like examples, chapter intro fiction and other such things that often is part of game books of is not included by default. Hence by just releasing a book with a...

Not needed. CC is the lifeline for 1.0a. There are just no conceivable way trying to revoke 1.0a can be beneficial for them now. New projects should likely use orc unless needing third party ogc though (or can use cc due to no need to declare product identity)

And this might be a time to say they won as well :) This might be enough to save them.

Exactly! What I tried there was to spell out explicitly in legal speech was how I believed your implicit reading of the "Contributors" definition. My impression is that the big understanding gap between you and @pemerton has been that standard contract theory require all involved legal entities...

I think I would like to take a shot at describing what I understand to be @FrogReaver 's position in terms of the neccessary component my understanding has to be present accordning to @pemerton 's exeedingly patient and informative answers. I am not a legal scholar, so I likely will mess this...

Well, I live in Norway, where by my understanding consumer protection might be stronger than most places. But I realize that this tangent is likely not very interesting, as I think the only remedies this kind of law typically allow for is refund of products (which I get the impression is not...

Ah, that would be my question (1). If indeed Paizo is able to contradict it, then as described the rest of the scenario is invalidated. This entire line of reasoning was spawned by this question being confirmed by @Hussar : The idea was that as Paizo is not a party of the contract between...

Well, if your decision on consuming the products of the company is based upon the promise that you for all future can use the product for hobby activity under certain terms - wouldn't changing those terms fall squarely under consumer law? As for your second bit. Yes, there are "winners" and...

No, I didn't position the inference that PF isn't protecting its trademarks. The crucial (incorrect) inference for this example would be that Paizo accept A's interpretation of the OGL due to not reasonably being able to know that Paizo disagree with A's much publicized claim as to what the OGL...