Search results

My point being that if you stop them using the OGL, they might decide to put the effort in to make a compatible product without it, and indicate compatibility with a legal fair use of your trademark. The only thing stopping them actually putting your trademark on there was that they were using...

<misreads this terribly> WotC are harvesting brains of Adventurers League DMs to implant in their new AI system!

My answer to this elsewhere, which I'll repeat here, is only if that morality is not policed by WotC themselves, but by some kind of elected board of 3PPs to prevent it being used to target people WotC just want out of the market and ensuring their interpretation of said morality clause fits...

Oh, agreed. Its just a bit academic seeing that they cannot actually revise it (they can issue new versions, but it looks very unlikely they can remove old ones except by getting people to actually agree not to use it), and can only make empty legal threats in the hope the legal fees involved...

Except they can do just that if they want to, that's the consequences of the OGL 1.0a which WotC/Hasbro cannot practically do anything about. They may not like that, but that does seem to be the situation they're in. I kinda hope they do because that's someone Hasbro wouldn't be able to...

Related to this, something that's bothered me for a while is this question: Is there one single instance of the OGL license agreement between me and whichever party/parties involved, or one per work that I create using the OGL? Or one per work I reused? If the OGL for my Product A is...

It'd certainly be interesting to see how that panned out. Do they simply allow people to ignore them and risk everyone doing it, or forge ahead with a case with a pretty good chance of losing? Does everyone back down at the first C&D letter without it ever seeing a courtroom because they know...

For me I figure it's a case of keeping existing projects ticking over, but then trying to put more and more effort into alternatives moving forwards. The existing revenue stream needs to be maintained, anything currently being worked on that's dependent on the OGL needs to be finished, and then...

The first thing that comes to mind is that without the OGL, it is now possible for me to stick "For use with the Dungeons and Dragons[tm] Roleplaying Game by Wizards of the Coast[tm], trademarks used without permission." on my book under fair use to indicate compatibility (as long as I do it in...

Yep, that's where CC falls over I believe. You're virally forcing every derivative work downstream to be 100% licensed under the same CC license, if I understand it correctly. I create my new game. I release the game as fully copyrighted, I release an SRD as CC (any variant). Anything you...

Suddenly I felt so justified about keeping my own game system drafts in a git repo, and then... Oh.

One reason why I will always resist any urge to think of my self as a D&D or Warhammer hobbyist. I'm a roleplayer and wargamer first, IPs may come and go, and I keep my hand in on a variety to stave off the chance I get too dependent and locked-in to something that's under corporate control.

IMO, it doesn't make much sense to produce a "Black Flag Rulebook" until the existing 5e one becomes hard to find. At that point, you want one just to make sure there's something for new players to keep the game going. Unless, of course, a large number of existing players make it clear they...

Oh, I've stopped giving any weight whatsoever to the creative team in all of this. "They" is Hasbro/WotC corporate, and they view the D&D team as a factory they own that outputs stuff.

Yup, I think they wanted the best of both worlds - that the 3PPs would be on board to keep the product support coming, with any big name licensed game returning royalties, while blocking specific things that would compete directly with them (e.g. VTTs against D&D Beyond). Now, in theory I don't...

Possibly of additional legal weight here is that you waive your usual fair use rights to WotC IP as a part of the OGL, I'd probably make an argument you potentially restrict your own sales reach as a part of that agreement and therefore the agreement had a material cost to the licensee beyond...

As long as they own the rights to every single scrap of material enclosed within themselves (or have permission from someone that does), releasing the same thing under two wildly different licenses is fine. It's then the choice of anyone reusing which of those licences they are using it under...

I think that depends which community people consider themselves a part of. For the RPG community, I think it'll be a great thing. For the D&D community, perhaps not so great.

Yeah, and if someone could somehow prove that PF2 is derivative of PF1, they're suddenly guilty of a bunch of OGL violations by not replicating PF1's S15. Not sure if that really matters to anyone, though, because then the 30 day remedy clause cuts in and all they have to do is fix that in...

Another positive outcome: most of us in general now have a greater understanding of licensing and possible loopholes than they did before this. I wouldn't necessarily say a perfect understanding, but certainly better than before.