Search results

Copyrighted, (or possibly Intellectual Property), not patented.. :)

Well WotC already showed the 3pp what they thought and intended to do.

WotC IS a party to the contract, one of the main considerations that they recieve from the contract is that they are ALSO free to use anyone elses OGC in future book (just like everyone else who agrees to the contract.) They have done this twice, UA & MM3. The fact that they have chosen NOT to...

I'm pretty sure that the SCO v IBM was the case that I'm thinking of. I tried in my free time today to find the original post where I gathered that info from.

I pointed that out to him in a tweet, with a relevant webarchive link to a interview with Dancey BEFORE the license was released.

I mean that lawyers gloss over how hard it is for the layman be certain that they ARE within the bounds of copyright. It's because they are experts and involved in the minutia so sometimes they make sweeping statements like Kate did from EFF in that all they have to do is follow copyright laws...

Except that the GPL v2 WAS ruled on that the intent of the license was to be irrevocable. Irrevocable was added to later licenses so that it couldn't be re-litigated

One of the big selling feature of the OGL was that you didn't NEED to keep a lawyer on retainer to make sure you understood and were using the copyright laws correctly. One of the things that I find most annoying when people just say use copyright laws, is that to the vast majority of people, it...

The EFF article isn't comparing them to the licenses of the day either, (GPL 2.0) which did NOT have the irrevocable in the license and was ruled that it was perpetual and irrevocable.

Note, this was from BEFORE the OGL and SRD was made. The original idea was going to be that the PHB, DMG, and the MM were themselves the SRD and there by OGC.

I wonder if Kate Walsh had taken into account that the OGL was written with the GPL in mind (per an interview with Ryan hosted on wizards.com) where explicitly compared them.

I was referring to your statement that "only Wizards can decide how to use it" in that OGL: Commercial licensees (not non-commercial) Creator B has to be able to license their OWN copyrighted Licensed Material to Creator C, without Creator A getting pissy about it. Because I can NOT imagine a...

Somebody dug up this gem. :) https://web.archive.org/web/20160203052926/http://www.wizards.com/dnd/article.asp?x=dnd%2Fmd%2Fmd20020228e

Yes, I should have clarified I did mean the commercial license (since there may or may not be having two going forward). WotC stating that you CAN'T relicense your OWN copyrighted material is completely mindblowing. That would be tantamount to saying that you do not have copyright to your own...

That is quite possibly literally the only thing I like from the leak. I suggested something very similar to the license person (Scott Rouse, I think?) in the run-up for 4e. Because otherwise you get Sec. 15 bloat, and this helps identify who the original author was.

All we know currently, is that it wasn't released on the schedule they expected.

This is incorrect, Creator C can't use your "Licensed Content" without a separate contract with Creator B. Creator A of course being WotC, that both B & C are using WotC's Licensed Content. according to how I read it.

Hmm, I wonder if I kept my copies somewhere...

The OGL was supposed to be read and understood by laypeople. This appears to be another departure from what has been.

I'm still catching up, so I'm about 8ish hours behind but wanted to ask this now so I didn't forget it by the time I did get caught up (damn ADD brain). :) They will HAVE to release an update to the SRD v5.1, ie v5.2 or v5.5 etc because the same content can NOT be licensed under two...