Search results

"Easily as" is not the same thing as being revoked. You might say that's a technical difference, but such technicalities are extremely salient where the law is concerned. (And, of course, the OGL isn't dead, having had new products released under it as recently as last week.)

I'd prefer a game that does something well, rather than one that does something new.

Except that it is separate. Hence, it's not a nonsense hypothetical for demonstrating why the legal aspects are a different consideration from the effect of making such a threat, regardless of the threat's validity.

Also per Wizards

Which, to once again reiterate what I said before, is a separate consideration from the consequences of simply making the threat, however dubious it might be.

I specifically said that the hypothetical did not involve revoking the CC.

Not really. Even if we presume that you're right about Microsoft caring, they don't publish anything with the 5.1 SRD, and so lack any kind of standing to be involved, meaning that they have no reassurance to offer (beyond the aforementioned amicus briefs of bankrolling someone else's legal...

@LaTia J I meant to ask this before, but is there any plan to release the 5.2 SRD under the OGL?

I understand that, but the "effectively" in that sentence is an acknowledgment of that being an indirect consequence; one party being able to withdraw their material wouldn't immediately revoke or otherwise invalidate the license itself. It would just make it possible for other people to...

There's a big difference between those two. Other people can still release their own original (i.e. non-derivative) material under the license even if other released materials are withdrawn; you can't do that with a license that's been revoked altogether.

It's hypothetical the same way that revoking the OGL is hypothetical; that's the entire point. That's the wrong question to ask; the right question is whether or not it's an "actual legal bit of movement" to the same extent that revocation is under contract law. If you're actually worried...

No, I'm not. I'm literally holding up that "withdraw" argument as an example of an unsound legal argument which nevertheless potentially seems just plausible enough to potentially frighten publishers off, akin to WotC's argument that they can "revoke" the OGL.

Which says nothing about "withdrawing" material; thanks for confirming that. And also doesn't use the word "withdraw," particularly in the sense of being unable to withdraw it. I'll also point out that the entire "withdraw" idea is meant to be an example of the sort of bad legal argument WotC...

Yes, it is. Incorrect. You seem to be ignoring that I specifically posited a situation whereby WotC would be "withdrawing" their own content, i.e. the 5.1 SRD, not revoking the entirety of the CC (since, as noted, the entire idea in that hypothetical is them purporting that the word "withdraw"...

True, which would make it a sort of "mini-Remaster," though I agree that would be more effort than they'd care to make.

Bear in mind that Table 1 (which is actually Table 1-1; my mistake there) on page eight of the 3.5 PHB actually has more than just the ability scores and their modifiers on it, also listing bonus spells gained for high ability scores. So simply deleting the bonus spells part would probably be...

That does sum it up, yes. You're right in that Paizo would need to wait for the 3.5 SRD to be added to the Creative Commons before they could release anything for PF1 into it (with the requisite disclaimer that "anything" refers to the game mechanics; I suppose they could release only flavor...

The answer is "it depends," largely on what edition you're trying to reproduce. For instance, most pre-3E editions didn't have quite the mechanical intricacy of 3E, so it wasn't that hard for enterprising members of the OSR to go back and re-tool what was in the 3.5 SRD for various other...

I suspect everyone would, since then the gaming community would have a much more concrete answer for a number of salient questions surrounding this topic. But then the question becomes who would bell the cat.