Search results

Yeah, the more I look into it, the more it looks like it's meant for a writer having a book with, say, both a US and a UK publisher, and the need to take each of those publishers to court and obtain seperate injunctions within the approprate jurisdictions.

Yes. This is why my first preference is something that has no relationship to W's SRD at all, but is completely different and has been developed seperately for decades without any problems. The safe harbour thing is certainly a consideration. Any D-adjacent SRD in this case would need to...

Ah, yeah, I was throwing out the hypothetical once the EU issue came up, and started thinking in terms of shipping stock to distributors rather than direct to customers. I may also be mistaken in that it's not distribution but publication that counts, so if I publish in the UK but ship to US...

Hmm. Lets say in this case I am Z. I have a work that is derivative of X,Y, and W, licensed under all three via the OGL. I have a couple of paragraphs lifted directly from W's SRD, a class from a book by X, and a spell from a PDF by Y. Now, I am assuming in this case I have three seperate...

This brings me to an analogy I've been trying to come up with. The current situation is somewhat akin to if Linus Torvalds told us he hereby revokes the rights to his contributions to the Linux kernel, and leaving every single other contributor wondering whether he's actually able to do that...

Given that "authorized" doesn't appear to have any legal meaning other than what is within the license itself (it does get a mention in the early OGL FAQs, but they may or may not have any legal weight), the only answer is "maybe" - it all comes down to what a Judge decides they actually have...

Oh, you just HAD to go and make an already complex issue even worse :D The only thing I feel any confidence in saying here, is that being in a different country to the person suing you does make it a little more likely you're at the bottom of their list if they have a number of people to go...

It's lost in as much as moving to ORC for a new work means we no longer have the right to use something produced under the OGL in that work. Dual-licensing is a possibility if all contributions referenced are also dual-licensed, and we know of one glaring entry that is not likely to be ;) So...

ORC feels safer, from the perspective of starting over with brand new ORC works that have no WotC content whatsoever. The threat of a copyright case from whoever wrote whichever SRD (any any other content) you're referencing still stands, but the ORC itself will have that extra added...

I agree totally, hence my conclusion that in most cases it's probably best to just draw a line under that 20+ years of work and start afresh, rather than attempting to republish something just to use the new license (if for no other reason than your audience has likely already bought it...

I think it would be a mistake to see this as simply as two sides. There are inevitably those who will take any opportunity to take a stab D&D and WotC , but also those with legitimate greviances through all of this, and those for whom the very idea of things going to litigation is enough to...

Yes, the new license appears to be a mess of contradictions and vagueness (to put it politely) in the form we've seen it. The original one was always viewed as being quite clear, in as much as a legal document can be, defining quite understandably what the terms "Open Game Content" and...

I think it's that the people there at the time it was written knew exactly what it meant (as did those of us who worked with the OGL from the start) - anyone can use anyone else's contributions that are marked as Open Game Content. We can use WotCs, they can also use ours, we can all use each...

It would. I would hope that at least some publishers will release a blanket permission that all their published OGL contributions can be assumed to be dual-licensed under ORC. That still doesnt cover dependent works their work may have used (hence why I use "contributions"), but the more...

That feels quite likely. The sheer number of changes at once in 1.1 indicate to me many people shouting around a table about something that has to change, all for different reasons. When they held their OGL meeting (or more likely, series of meetings), the person standing up wanting to protect...

And once you hit 1.1, you find you're forever locked into future versions too even though you've got no idea today what they might be ;) So, as you say, the safer course is to use a completely different license that you can feel comfortable with.

It really is something of a quandry, because from a 3PP PoV, it's increasingly likely they will move away from the OGL after this for fear of WotC trying to throw their weight around again in future. However, there are 20+ years of materials licensed under the OGL, in a tangled spiderweb of...

Put like that, I'm very glad they did it the way they did, as this would have still killed VTTs other than Foundry. Far better everyone gets upset enough to fight the idea of it killing anything. Which now worries me that their new plan is just the same, but to do it in increments so as not to...

I think a lot of that was interrelated - the document appeared, 20 years ago, to have no loophole they could use, and for 20 years they didn't. Trust in both the OGL and WotC was formed together, at least for me, and 20+ years of working with it left me very confident that it was solid ground...

Yeah, at this point I honestly think even if I felt the OGL was revised to be absolutely ironclad, I'd still don't think I could trust them to never look for a way out - after all we thought it was ironclad 20 years ago - or to never again throw their weight around on the premise nobody will...