Search results

Probably nothing. If we're assuming a mostly-to-full evil version of WotC, they starve the market for D&D-related content for the year before 6e comes out, clearing the field for 6e's arrival. By the time 6e is released in 2024, D&D fans starved for new content boost 6e's initial sales to...

I somewhat agree on the two-page vs. ten-page point, but it introduces doubt to me. A sloppy drafting error like that in such a simple agreement suggests sloppiness in the substance. And it's not like there aren't other errors and inconsistencies in the text of the OGL. They add up. I do agree...

I'm not putting much stock in the opinion of the guy who may overlooked that terms in the final, published version of the OGL that seem to require specific definitions did not include the actual language of those specific definitions. It's a two-page legal agreement, for Pete's sake.

Deleted.

Someone's got to spend the time and money to get a court to invoke contra proferentem, though.

Emphasis added.

The new executives in charge of D&D are primarily e-commerce folks.

D&D's entire senior leadership team has been replaced in the past six months with people who have no relevant experience with, or connection to, D&D's history and place within the TRPG industry. Anyone who might raise a concern is either invested in the success of this new approach or focused on...

Deleted.

I think I follow you. But the definition of Use relates to Derivative Material of Open Game Content, not Open Game Content itself. This is where I mostly lose my footing, in the definitions of "Derivative Material" and "Open Game Content". If the OGL's leaning in part on the U.S. Copyright...

Agreed.

I don't think you read my exchanges with Alzrius very closely.

You're going to snark on me to illustrate the point that we shouldn't snark before all the facts are in? I'll pass on that wisdom.

Maybe you posted this before reading the rest of the thread to see that Alzrius and I made peace about this?

Look, I genuinely don't know what law governs the OGL. So my questions weren't traps, exactly. If you know the answer, share with the group.

Your reply struck me as snarky, so that's how I responded. If you didn't intend it that way, then let's chalk it up to misunderstanding tone on the Internet and move on.

Yes, I know that. Congratulations on spotting my clever, Socratic traps.

You could have done this additional Google search before you pulled the trigger on Black's.

I asked for a legally-controlling source. From your own Wikipedia link: Black's is published by a private company, not any particular state government or the federal government. It finds its definitions by examining case law and publishing what they find. They are a secondary source, not a...

I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative...