Search results

Thank you! I think maybe here lie a key observation. I can agree that if the OGL is looked at trough the same lens as negotiated private contracts between commercial parties this all make very much sense. I think the problem I have with this is that as you point out for instance consumer...

No, but MacDonalds being the only profitable fastfood resturant would have been a monopoly? Wizards establishing an exclusive platform for D&D play would not in itself constitute a monopoly - and noone has claimed so. What might cause this to be a move toward monopoly is if this makes the other...

However, what if I could claim that I had reasonable reason to believe I was invited? For instance if two houses next to each other are having identical signs reading "everyone is welcome to enter, as long as you don't wear shoes". I see a lot of people enter one of the houses with slippers. I...

What I find mind boggling about this is that there are definitely parties interested in maintaining the integrity of this license, including the public. To illustrate: For the sake of argument assume wizards go defunct in a way that make their IP effectively unenforced (as @pemerton points out...

Wait a second. Do this mean that if wizards go out of business without managing to sell off the rights to the SRD content, I can safely use the srd ogcs forever as noone can contest my use of the ogl1.0a?

No, as long as main stream media keep reporting on it as wizards merely trying to update a licensing agreement, there is no chance. If media had been reporting on wizards breaking promisses, former microsoft execs going after an open source community, and their disttastefull use of minority...

This is a good point. I was thinking that you had to be a part of the contract to initiate legal actions related to the contract. In that case I agree trying to grasp at some weird legal edge case to bootstrap a robust content pool is not making sense. It seem like such a content pool...

I don't immediately see how this knowledge element prohibits an interpretation of collective licensing. After all the openess of the license by it's very nature mean that at least one part of the legal arangement need to be explicitly aware of the other. In your example A do not to be aware of...

I earlier used the term "legal entity" I now realise that is likely completely wrong, and might have confused the conversation. The OGL clearly demands "Contributors" to be accepted as at least a concept. However calling this concept an "entity" seem to be comming with too much legal baggage...

As a layman, I think the key observation to resolve this conondrum is that various works by the same author can use different mechanisms to obtain rights to the use of that material. OGL provides one potential mechanism of obtaining rights to material. However declaring OGL do not involve the...

If you create a company with yourself as the only employee; cannot you enter a employment contract with that company? The argument here is that "the contributors" could be interpreted as a separate [edit: not legal] entity from wizards, even at the point in time wizards was the only one...

The way I read mr Colville is that the big depressing thing here is that we will lose the gating into the hobby. It is a bait and switch. There will be people curious about this D&D thing, they will find references to it all over Internet. And when they check out how they can play, they are...

And how is everyone on the planet being a licensee absurd? (Given the idea that the open content should be available for everyone on the planet) (Edit: also worth noting, the interpretation path we are looking at here doesnt require everyone to be licensees as not everyone has actually...

@Blue @Snarf Zagyg I dont know if there is some history here between you that I am not seeing? If not this seem to me to be a simple misunderstanding, and you both appear to agree on the funadamentals, you just talk about completely different things. @Blue , you appear hurt that Snarf accused...

(I said  almost everyone, so you dont contradictates me) Your statement had been right if the ttrpg space had been balanced with several similarly viable systems for digital tooling to cater to. However it is the fact that this is not the case that makes wizards move arguably a bid at  effective...

Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that...

I cannot speak for FrogReaver, but to me this is the part that might be interesting in terms of your approach to trying to understand what is meant by "open gaming content": This choice of words making you a licensee rather than merely a licensor I think is the interesting detail. To me this...

Are we talking about the same thing? "Hasbro's worst offer from a few weeks ago is still miles better than what a company like Disney would give you" Hardly anyone is talking about the offer in this context. There seem to be a general agreement that wizards can give whatever terms they want...

Few might be as easily cooked though. Some times even they might go for a simple snack?

This has got me thinking. The big challenge with supporting alternatives is that most players are not playing alternatives due to not really seeing anything but the "defaults". I checked some of the big public LFG forums like Roll20 and reddit/lfg. There seem to be some more alternative games...