Search results

That's the rub, isn't it? OGL v1.0(a) had very clear language to that effect: you accept the license by using it, and you use it by publishing something that complies with the terms of the license (one of those terms being the inclusion of the text of OGL v1.0(a) somewhere within or attached to...

Curiously, the dropped text doesn't explain how you accept this license. No language addressing Acceptance, Consideration, or anything like that. Must've been in the accompanying contracts that needed signing. But it's telling. So far, there's no apparent mechanism for opting in.

WotC is really dialing up the edge on 6th edition tieflings, eh?

Open Game Content only means something while the OGL exists. If WotC can revoke the OGL v1.0 (and if it's true that the OGL v1.1 only talks about "Licensed Content" but doesn't discuss "Open Game Content"), then it doesn't really matter what publishers have designated as OGC; WotC will have...

With respect, you're the one who just conflated a forum post stating a rather banal observation (tantamount to "if nothing happens, then nothing happens") with legal advice.

And absent any rulings or injunctions or other court orders… absolutely nothing happens to those who keep using v1.0. (No judgement on those who feel it isn't worth the risk, of course, and bow out of the suddenly chilled environment of their own volition. I'm not in their position, I can't...

I get that, but since there's no mechanism for revocation within the language of v1.0, it would seem that the only way WotC could ever compel anyone to treat v1.0 as revoked is by getting them to agree to a new license: GSL or OGL v1.1. And if I don't want to agree to a new license, I don't...

Yes, we're all well aware of the details. What I mean is, since it's language contained within the new license that explicitly de-authorizes the old one, you have to agree to the terms of the new license for that language to apply to anything that you do. Consider: I have content published...

The technologist from EN Publishing's The Fantastic Science is pretty good.

I still have yet to hear any compelling evidence that v1.1 can touch v1.0(a) in the way everybody fears. If there's language in v1.1 that says v1.0 is dead, that's rough… for anyone who is a party to v1.1. For anyone who is not, v1.1 might as well not exist, except to the extent that any duly...

Yes, the irony has already been noticed.

The big problems with that are 5.0–5.5 compatibility and the fact that Pathfinder exists now. Nothing like Pathfinder existed when the GSL scheme was dreamed up. I'm convinced that this whole mess has come about because WotC is desperate to prevent the emergence of an OGL-protected...

Given that publishing material is lifeblood to a game, the OGL meant that games didn't have to die anymore. Reminding everyone that you can just play your dead games forever is analogous to telling Olympians and Æsir with no more ambrosia or golden apples to keep everyone in their world...

1.0a clarifies "trademarks and licensed trademarks" where 1.0 only mentions "trademarks."

But again, what could compel that? If I don't agree to v1.1 — if I just act like v1.1 doesn't exist and go about my merry way publishing under v1.0 — what could stop me? Clearly, the company to watch in the coming days will be Paizo. They're the biggest fish in what is still basically the...

Obviously. But the question at hand is whether publishing under 1.0 can implicitly bind you to 1.1 (and more to the point, whether publishing under 1.0 after 1.1 has been released can do so).

That all hinges on whether they can in fact "de-authorize" v1.0(a), which is a very open question at this point. Sure, WotC can try and say that it's been de-authorized and supplanted by v1.1… but can they actually stop anyone who wants to publish under v1.0a from pretending that v1.1 simply...

I mostly just stick to the Rules Cyclopedia, but with a fair few tweaks and house-rules.

My story is similar. I switched over to C&C as soon as I found out about it, and playing it felt better than 3.x had — like half-way to coming home — but, as seems to be a common story, for me C&C proved to be little more than a stepping-stone on the path leading all the way back to home and OAD&D.

I've never seen it specified, but I always roll separately for each group of similar creatures. So I'd roll once for the hobgoblin and once for all the goblins in this case.