Search results

Depends how they define de-authorization. They can certainly prevent any further licensing under 1.0a by pulling their offer. They can't de-license already-licensed works. They probably can't stop third parties using 1.0a between themselves, especially in that 1.0a requires the licensee to make...

For me, also add: Removal of any different treatment for VTTs/other software A clear explanation of how to combine their 1.2-licensed content with existing non-WotC 1.0a-licensed content.

I don't think it's illegal, they just can't do what they say they're doing re: de-authorizing 1.0a. Example: I can say I hereby revoke any rights for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace. I'm not breaking any law by saying that, it's simply that my words carry absolutely no weight. Now, if I...

So far, I think it's safe to assume they're all categorized as "VTT", being "software that replicates and/or automates the tabletop". So far. Until WotC decide they're not. I'm very, very uncomfortable having these things picked out and not covered by the OGL directly.

The most likely answer here is "stuff that makes your VTT anything more than a flat, amateur-looking effort with a terrible UI will be too much"

The problem here is 1.2 only applies specifically to WotC content, there's no real explanation of how to combine WotC content and 3PP content when 1.2 itself can't be used for 3PP content, implying we need to also include 1.0a for that.

I mean, I'm taking it overall as a positive that they're willing to listen. It depends now on whether they're willing to do anything about the glaring problems still remaining.

Oh, hey there fellow Lone Wolf fan! Quite. If 1.0a works remain licensed, that includes the ability granted within to sublicense. If that sublicensing is done by a third party, WotC's de-authorization of 1.0a for future works no longer applies, besides which 1.2 cannot be used to license...

I lean towards thinking you will need a 1.2 license for the WotC bit and a 1.0a for the 1.0a-licensed 3PP stuff you use. Now, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't cover you, but I'm far from confident WotC won't take exception with the inclusion of those 1.0a licenses in new products and...

Yeah, I mean, I trusted WotC circa 2000 not to ever try and stop the OGL 1.0a. WotC today is not that WotC. I trust WotC circa today not to abuse a morality clause for their own benefit. But who runs WotC tomorrow?

<sigh> That's just great, another clarification we need them to make. Now, it's pretty clear to me that this is not an authorized update to a license between a third party and myself, because it states specifically that it is between WotC and myself. Therefore it can only apply to their OGC...

I'm pretty confident that legally, 1.0a-licensed works can continue to sublicense their content under 1.0a. I'm fairly confident that this includes sublicensing any SRD content they included. What I'm not confident on is whether WotC agree with this and will make peoples lives difficult :( We...

Yep, that or ideally something like: For SRD 5.x, all versions of the OGL previous to this are de-authorized. For SRD 4.x 3.x, and Open Game Content produced by third parties under 1.0a, only previous versions of the OGL are authorized. (obviously, they're free to put 3.x/4.x in the top...

The problem here is that there are (at least) two answers to this. Legally, it's simply a matter of continuing to license non-WotC content under 1.0a. The question is whether WotC are okay with this. Again, legally, it doesn't matter if they are or not, but it would be far easier for everyone...

I think that would depend on whether the problem of people deciding to just keep using 1.0a (or alternative ways around the problem) becomes a greater one than them being the sole arbiter of the morality clause. Their goal has include bringing people under their license, rather than pushing...

Want to make a VTT that includes the SRD and has animated tokens+effects, or an SRD-based computer game? Absolutely fine under 1.0a with a promise from them that it would be fine forever. Not fine now.

This is the concern I had since this started - that they offer the community just enough that we're okay with throwing someone under the bus because "95% of it is fine". Then they get more and more restrictive over the coming years.

The thing most likely here is seeing what WotC do in response to a Paizo product that includes no OGL license.

Presumably, my adventure is using statblock layouts and references to other game terms fromthe OGL. I wonder how much material is enough? ;)

That depends on whether having no license from WotC whatsoever gives WotC a case to sue Paizo over copyright infringement, as Paizo have made it clear they're not going to have any license until the ORC is ready, and then using that. A slightly different situation to a 3PP that keeps on using...