Search results

Paizo appear to be working on excising any and all WotC-copyrightable content from PF2, in order to release a PF2 (2.5?) SRD under the ORC license. Kobold Press's new system would also appear to be implied to use this license. Comments from Chaosium indicate that BRP will be made available...

I already jumped ship a while ago when I realized I have a preference nowadays for much simpler rulesets such as Mutant: Year Zero, or the Vortex system used in C7's Doctor Who RPG. I did still keep buying the occasional 5e book and playing the occasional game just to keep a hand in, but if the...

Unfortunately, it almost certainly would. Otherwise it would require retroactively applying the ORC License to those materials without the copyright holder's permission. It's especially difficult for material that contains other OGC itself, you would technically need permission from everyone...

While that's certainly true, I think we can't completely discount the value that the 3PP support has added to the product line without requiring WotC to output as much material themselves in the current edition (compared to previous ones). That kept their system "alive" while allowing them to...

Difficult to say until we've actually heard anything official. I've seen mumblings here and there, but it's all going to depend on how they phrase things publicly, and whether they try to imply that the OGL 1.0a is de-authorized whether we or not we agree to 1.1 leaving no other option than to...

This gives me a lot of hope that one of my worst-case scenarios (every 3PP doing their own license and them all being incompatible with one another) will at least not come to pass. THANK YOU, Paizo, Azora Law, and everyone else involved.

I'm thinking they didn't actually care much about informing any 3PPs, big or small, and only sent this to their more intermediary partners such as Kickstarter (to get them on board policing the crowdfunding projects for them) and those they have existing contracts with (outside of the OGL) such...

I can actually see this being a reasonable (to them) option - although I think they'd likely license the trademark out (boardgames, toys, novels, etc.) for a while so they can point to the monetization on the boardroom graphs.

It seems to me that as the license itself requires you to sublicense your work under it , then being unable to revoke/de-authorize it means the license's own requirements requring you to pass on those same rights you had keep that license alive - you're required to open a part of your work (even...

Apologies, I didn't mean to imply any specific instance where it wasn't a contract, only that I know it is within the EU, and might not be elsewhere. Also that contract law itself may differ between territories.

I'd point out here that the USB standard is far better for everyone than the "Facebook standard", with the former being a good thing and the latter being closer to WotC's hold on the OGL. The USB standard is maintained by an industry group putting it outside of the grubby little mitts of any...

Thanks for putting that far more elequently and succinctly than my own rambling version :D

My guess here is that their lawyers have explained that they do not actually have a practical revocation mechanism for what is a viral license distributed far beyond reasonable ability to track properly, they can't simply announce it and hope people see the announcement, for example. The...

Best Case: "Oops, We really screwed up, didn't we. Just forget you saw any of that, and the new OGL 1.0b will be the same as 1.0a but with the word 'irrevokable' included" Realistic Case: "Obviously we cannot revoke 1.0a without your agreement, it was never our intent for that to be read into...

There's a very important distinction to be made here: We have three different versions of OGL 1.1 to consider What does Wizards say in their comments outside of 1.1 What does 1.1 actually say What can 1.1 actually do Then there's two more things to consider What is Wizards saying without...

Yeah, I think it's more likely going to be worth focusing on the OGL being a legal contract, and whether one side has the rights to unilaterally make changes to a contract.

I think there might be a case to be made here that the OGL also allows you a safe harbor to put various materials online for your gaming group without having to worry about copyright violation, even if you're not intending to be an actual 3PP publisher. I'm also not sure where exactly this puts...

Something else to consider in fighting any attempt to retroactively remove OGL 1.0 without the consent of both parties: EU law tends to have a lot more consumer protections than US law. It also considers a license a contract, and I'm not sure if the same is true in the US. So I'm hoping...

A legal case that might be applicable: Jacobsen v Katzer (2008) ruled that a non-exclusive copyright license with no revocation clause (the same thing being argued here over the OGL) can only be revoked if there was no consideration involved. It also ruled that in the case of FOSS software...

The relevant part of this I feel is "but what happens if Hasbro decides it can make more money by selling PDFs directly instead?" Given that OneD&D's online component effectively does just that, by moving all future electronic D&D sales there. That only leaves OBS with historical D&D content...