Search results

I understand all of that. How do you conform that to the explicit text: “The Contributors grant you”? Bold added by me. The use of “sub-license” seems to be in conflict with the bolded text. (A casual read of Section 4 is that the Contributors are granting a license, as a consequence of...

The presumption is necessary to ask the question that follows. I’m asking to learn what is the character of the licenses which are formed by copying the terms of the head license. Do these conform to the definition of sub-licenses? Does calling them sub-licenses actually make them...

Right. Ignore all of that. Presume that the usage of the term “sub-license” in the OGL is erroneous. Consider the licenses which are created by copying the terms of the OGL. Would those normally be considered sub-licenses? TomB

I’m still confused by “sub-license”. Presumably, “sub” is at least descriptive, regardless of the specific legal meaning. To my layman’s view: The OGL 1.0a is both an agreement to offer a license, a mechanism to grant licenses, and, by that mechanism, which is to copy the terms of the OGL, an...

A question: Is WotC a Contributor? I’ve been taking been taking this as a given, but I can’t find a clear statement anywhere that they have “Contributed” OGC. They have made the SRD available as OGC but not by “contributing“ it through The OGL. They did so under the original “top level” OGL...

Ah. Ok, I think my problem was that I was missing the "at time zero": Bold added by me. More precisely then, each Contributor agrees at time zero (when they accepted the license) that they will -- in the future and to currently unknown parties -- grant a license to their contributed content...

I was responding to this: Isn't the grant of a license a private law agreement? TomB

Additional text omitted. But doesn't section 4 do exactly that? If not as a pool, at least individually? Doesn't each Contributor implicitly agree to, at future point in time, to an as of yet unknown new User, to grant them a license? TomB

The word “Use” (of OGC) is being used (by some) in the sense of being sufficient for the OGL (taken as a contract which, when accepted issues a license) to be accepted and a license issued. Section 2 specifies a condition which is a requirement of the agreement. I take that to mean that even...

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...