Search results

I honestly cannot remember the last time I felt something was so utterly terrible that I couldn't even finish it, so that is conjuring up some real images of horror for me. (Why are the number of spaces after each period variable from page to page? No its ROGUE ffs. Oh my god, they're using...

Interestingly, Royalties were something I had no problem with. I figure anyone making that much can probably go talk to WotC and negotiate terms for their own specific non-OGL license anyway. Meanwhile I'm very concerned about where this puts software, including VTTs. (Not saying you have to...

Indeed. Except that you need an agreement with the entity licensing you that content, and 1.2 specifically (from the text at the very beginning) is only between you and WotC, and does not provide a way to add that entity to a S15 :( Hence the quandry. I suppose you could feasibly change the WotC...

Do you have any idea how long it takes to negotiate bribes to senators? Do you? ;)

Agreed. Just "opening our stuff for other people to use" is... well, that's just a plain license. "Open License" implies to me that You can't change the terms, or revoke/de-authorize once its out there (you can still make it available under other licenses too, you just can't stop making it...

Yeah. I get that I can still use any other license I wish, it'd just be a lot neater to have a OGL 1.0a Section 15 to add mine to that copy of the 1.2 in there than have to include my own license page ;) (and still leaves the issue of how to combine legacy 1.0a content in there, which we...

Same. I also look forward to seeing how successful the ORC-licensed games are, in the hope that the D&D alternatives end up with a bigger share than they do now. Personally, I do not want to have my livelihood 100% dependant on the whims of a single company, so the more baskets I can spread my...

Oh, 1.2 is certainly more reasonable than 1.1. Its just it still crosses some important red lines for some of us that we're willing to keep fighting for. I feel some of those red lines we may still be able to get them to give in on, but I feel there's also some which they never will and that...

That's technically true with the OGL too, if someone decides not to contribute anything as Open Game Content. The main difference here is that you will need to specify what license you are contributing your content under, the 1.2 license has no Section15-alike mechanism to add your...

Absolutely. Which is why there needs to be a court judgement on the continued use of 1.0a. They're not going to add the necessary terms to 1.2 and the VTT policy, and even if they did there would be nothing preventing them slowly walking the VTT policy back as we get nearer to their own...

If your OGL is from a third party publisher (e.g, by getting it from a third party d20 corebook) rather than directly from WotC's OGL, I'm not even sure what they can sue for if I'm honest. I mean, they can try and sue for copyright violation, claiming you are not licensed, but that third party...

I read that as "you can combine your content with our content, and make a finished product out of it, and distribute it to customers" - not that "your content" becomes reusable by other creators under that license.

1.2 does not include a mechanism for that, no. The way things stand, and what appears to be intended by them, is that all other content you reuse is licensed outside of 1.2, so you'd include 1.2 for the SRD part and then whatever other licenses you need. So you could have 1.2 for the SRD part...

That covers almost all of my concerns. Personally, I will be adding that no form of media should be excluded from the new OGL, or receive any additional restrictions (the idea that a VTT cannot animate a spell is utterly ludicrous, even if I can already see a loophole that would let someone do...

Yeah, it's placed an extra step now for 3PPs opening up their work f they're using 1.2, in that they have to choose a license to use, add that at the back in addition to 1.2, and somehow specify which bits are included and which are not (which means it needs to be a license that can actually...

This makes me wonder whether it was so awful that everyone just assumed it was a parody, and covered under Fair Use.

I'm assuming you mean the SRD here. The specific text of the SRD is, in fact, WotC's copyrighted intellectual property. It is IP they have licensed to us under the OGL, that we can reuse, mix, and republish under that license, but it is still technically theirs. If you were to use it without...

There appears to be very little legal argument (none whatsoever, in fact) that WotC's deauthorization can extend beyond their own licenses, and probably only in the issuing of new ones, because there is no mechanism for them to deauthorize existing ones. If your license is with a third party...

In my laymans, but researched, opinion, sublicensing of the OGL between two parties cannot be revoked by WotC, and their deauthorization of OGL 1.0a only applies to instances where they are the licensor. Thank you for your contribution - may I also suggest the various Mongoose Pocket...

It's entirely possible they do not. However, the law does, and their OGL contract with us does not have an expiry date. If I sell you something, that's covered under a contract of sale, represents the vast majority of contracts in existence, and certainly does last forever. If I sell you a...