Search results

To be fair, even that didn't really divert much effort away from non-d20 games. It just brought in a heck of a lot of new blood that did make d20 games and supplements. I can remember the visual effect as my local comics+games store had to double the size of their RPG display, rather than...

Mostly because they were fine with it potentially funding major competitors until they decided they were not. It was always a possibility since 2000 that someone would make a game that rivaled D&D using the OGL. They didn't even make noises when that actually happened in 2008. The fact...

As someone fighting to keep their livelihood here, I would feel really awful throwing anyone else under the bus just to get my bit safeguarded. For all I know, someone's been working on a movie for a year that somehow uses SRD material (seems unlikely, but it's a possibility). So absolutely no...

Ponies, obviously. Or, as I've mentioned before, if WotC want to buy me out of my own individual OGL contract with them, I'm willing to hear dollar offers.

Not necessarily. They could hire a good RPG designer to make a new one for them. Using one of the non-d20 alternatives that is open is also an option (especially with people jumping on the ORC bandwagon and bringing systems with them).

That also requires a Judge to grant it. That bit seems to be a very big "if" for WotC as things stand, because they appear unable to meet all of the three pillars arguments (which have been mentioned a few times elsewhere on the forums over the past week or so)

The only lawyers saying that it is are those who have misunderstood the contract to be a unilateral grant and not a bilateral agreement because they don't seem to have read any further than the word "license" and assumed it was all one way. It is fairly obvious to anyone that actually reads it...

Uh, we have? We've asked they add new wording to clarify they recognize the fact that they cannot take those livelihoods away. Until they do that, those livelihoods are far better protected under the binding 1.0a agreement we have with them than anything else they could possibly offer short of...

Hardly. Batman was the good guy, not the thief trying to steal things that are not theirs. That has zero bearing on whether or not what they say they want to do is something they legally can do.

That, right there, is where most of us disagree. They are not going to win that fight.

Thankfully, they cannot unilaterally take anything away that they have already given. Everyone that has used the OGL has a binding, bilateral contract with WotC that neither side has the ability to cancel unilaterally. It is not one single agreement that can simply be "cancelled", all WotC can...

And now I shall be reading for the next few hours after already noticing such gems as:

Ugh. Okay, try these for the gzipped text archives: Gzips for 2001 from this page https://web.archive.org/web/20011220224149/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/pipermail/ogf-l 2002-2006 monthly gzips from this page: The Ogf-l Archives

Silly me, why didn't I think of archive.org? Here we go, from the very beginning with Ryan's test posts. https://web.archive.org/web/20061012104907/http://charibdes.isomedia.com/pipermail/ogf-l/2002-January/thread.html EDIT: Not quite the very beginning, looks like there was a list issue and...

There's a copy at ogf-l - unfortunately only messages since 2004 :( I probably have ancient Outlook .pst files with the really old stuff buried in an attic on a burned CD that'll take the next five years to dig out...

It may be a major goal, but it probably isn't completely legal for them to do. Concensus at the moment seems to be that they can cease offering any new OGL 1.0a licenses, but what they cannot do is revoke existing ones, or prevent their existing licensees from continuing to sublicense under...

This sounds highly subjective. I don't even think the d20 system and its various derivatives are all that good in the first place, there's far better RPG systems out there from my perspective. What would be more accurate is whether any major company can make a "D&D-enough RPG" without that...

The other question worth asking here is how they plan to communicate that to someone that's just got the 3.5 SRD and OGL files off a dusty floppy disk and decides to take advantage of the license offer on them. What exactly makes the new (prospective) licensee responsible for going and checking...

I curse myself for getting so drunk last night that I did something so incredibly stupid. Then I sell it right away, because I'm bound to screw up and make it worthless.

To me, it's a case of which do I want to stop them using the most - my open-to-the-world SRD that doesn't really contain all that much I can stop people using with or without a license, or my Trademarks?