Search results

Trying to find a spot for this reply. From this: As there are conditions - section 2, at least - section 3 would seem to require those conditions in addition to ”Use” (as defined in section 1g) before a license is given (granted?) I presume, legally, this goes without saying, hence the very...

I find the last sentence problematic for licensees: That last sentence seems to imply that the particular license for a new product doesn’t exist until the product is distributed. Implying that the license offer can be withdrawn while the product is being created. That is, assuming that the...

It just seems an oddly ambiguous thing to put in a contract. Absent a specific action, knowing intent is mind reading. This is important in writing and in implementing software, which is my background, as computers cannot read the user's mind to know their intent. A computer must rely on a...

Additional text omitted. "Any" open content seems to make section 2 apply to specific Open Game Content which is present in a new product. Section 2 seems to be how new content becomes Open Game Content. "The" Open Game Content, from section 3, parses badly. Use can be thought of as...

In the realm of animations, what counts? There is a fuzzy line here: * Folks have been drawing spell areas of effect for decades. * Certain progressive effects have been drawn for decades. A spell effect that creeps along might be drawn progressively. That's a very crude animation, but...

Yeah. I presume that a product may be redistributed choosing a different version of the license, which is trivial to do for content which is distributed digitally. But, such a change is not necessary once a distribution has been made under a specific version. Sigh. Unless the offer of a...

My meaning was this: Each product uses a specific version of the license. When distributing a new product, that version is selected. A version being selected and the product distributed, that product continues to use the same license version. Then, the ability to choose a license version is...

A question: Is section 9 (using any authorized license) meaningful other than for new products that use OGC? There is no need to choose a license for existing products. Those seem to have their license already set. TomB

Perhaps what changed is that the $ on the line went from tens of millions to hundreds of millions. TomB

I'm thinking the VTT would be prevented by the OGL 1.2 from putting that together with any OGL 1.2 SRD content. You could provide the animation, but the VTT couldn't use it. (Pondering this further: I'm thinking a goal of WotC is to monetize, via microtransactions, graphical and sound assets...

Additional text omitted. I would expect the limitation of the new license to text and static resources would be also be a big problem. Are apps which help build characters allowed? What about encounter builders? As discussed previously, dynamic lighting in a VTT seems disallowed. Plus, from...

Answering a question with a question: can the offer be embedded in published material? Is it possible to un-publish something? TomB

Hmm, I was meaning to set aside the question of whether de-authorization was possible. My intent was to ask about whether the phrase “you may use” was a right granted by the license. Then, ”use” seems to be an ongoing thing. Once you have a license, you may then and continuing into the...

The text: . Isn't “use” a privilege granted by the license? Then, so long as “authorized” is still in effect, ”You may use” seems unrestricted. What prevents it from applying to new products? This seems to be permission to use any OGC — as a benefit granted by the license. That permission...

But, that's a basic copyright case. Illithids are not Open Content. It doesn't seem that the OGL is relevant. Meaning, that case has little or no bearing on the OGL, except to show that the Product Identity of specific depictions of Illithids has a valid copyright. Maybe, if there was a case...

Can we distinguish between revoke as in “revoke current licenses” and revoke as ”cease to offer”? The first applies to products already in existence; the second applies to new products. Failing to make this distinction adds an ambiguity that (IMO) wrecks a discussion. The discussion becomes...

But they did comment as legal experts. Presenting one’s self as a legal expert, one avoids looking dumb by actually being an expert. When there is doubt, there are ways to express that while providing concrete advice. It seems a very strange plan to destroy one’s own reputation as part of the...

I was off put by that attitude in his presentation. Saying that the the OGL isn’t necessary anyways, so nothing to worry about here, failed to re-assure me. I felt pushed to deeper concern. I really wish these presentations adhered much more to specific issues. What really does it mean for...

Note that the FAQ answer is relative to publishing 5E content. Also, the grace period is restricted to product types allowed by the new license. Finally, six months seems too short: The period from funding to delivery can be years, if Kickstarter is an example. TomB

‘Does this answer the question of whether the license offer can be withdrawn for future products? It’s one thing to revoke the license already granted to an existing product. It seems a different thing to cease to offer the license for new products. This distinction seems to be overlooked in...