Search results

Appreciate you digging into this. So if I am reading this correctly that if I was to offer you (S'mon) perpetual terms but among those terms was a termination clause. The court held that the termination clause still applies? Also @pemerton what is the key case in an Australian jurisdiction...

I have a simple question about the requirement of adding the term irrevocable to make a license like the GPL or OGL truly unable to be revoked. What is the court case that decided this in various common law jurisdictions? I was told that this was an addition added only in the late 2000s. And...

Also, I see little to no discussion of Section 13 the termination clause where it is explicitly stated the condition under which the license may be terminated. Along with a standalone provision that explicitly states that if the license is terminated the sublicenses are continued.

Oh? And where is this magical manpower that Wizards conjured up that singerly handily expanded the D&D to its largest audience ever? I understand what you are trying to say here and I apologize for the sarcastic tone. But figuring out how D&D expanded to its largest audience ever is about the...

For folks who are interested here is an analysis of GPL version 2 which unlike version 3 doesn't contain the term irrevocable. Since the one of the sources for the OGL was the current GPLv2 it may be relevant. https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4 I recommend...

That the situation most of the OSR Publishers, like myself are faced with. Most of our stuff like my Majestic Fantasy RPG are now several steps away from the original d20 SRD.

Sorry while I am not a lawyer, I am also a software developer who uses open source software and content since the early 90s. The case law behind open source licenses like the Artistic License or the GNU Public doesn't support this interpretation. See Jacobsen v. Katzer. Many Open contact...

While I appreciate what Ryan and his team did. Wizards at the time should have used the wording of Section 9 of the GPL. It was much clearer wording of what being attempted with this clause. Irrevocable doesn't appear in the GPL and it worked out just fine with that license.

I made another blog post on Section 9 of the OGL Section 9 of the Open Game License There is been a lot of discussion over whether Wizards can revoke the OGL by de-authorizing it. This came about because of Section 9 of the open game license. I highlighted in bold the operative section. The...

I think the GPL is far more clear and straight forward than what Wizards did. However intent holds great weight with the courts. To me it is clear it looks like Wizard was trying to do the same thing as clause 9 of the GPL v2. However a wizard's lawyer thought they could do a better job of...

What folks need to consider is how the OGL Section 9 came about. It is basic Wizard's implementation of this clauses from the GPL Version 2.

Sorry incomplete hypothetical, Joe shares the modification of the MF RPG AFTER Wizards withdraws the offer. And also Joe basically doesn't do much on-line. He just happened to buy my book at North Texas Con. The same with Steve. Keep in mind if we accept @pemerton conclusion. The OGL explicitly...

So Matt Finch used the permission that Wizards gave on the d20 SRD to make Swords and Wizardry. I turn use the Matt's permission on Swords & Wizardry to make the Majestic Fantasy RPG. Joe who in turn modifies the MF RPG and gives that to Steve. Then as @pemerton theorizes Wizards withdraw the...

My advice would be to cover the entire source code under the OGL, declare the non-OGL proportion as Product Identity. The contents of the /ogc direction are declared open content under the OGL. Then allow users to use the product identity under the MIT license. Which the OGL permits via. In the...

To cut Wizards a very very small amount of slack, there has always been a sizable minority of the hobby that are anti-OGL for various reasons. And a much larger group who just want to get on with the gaming and wished that things were more straightforward. And my point of view is that it would...

You are correct. It would still take some thought and design work to make sure anything dependent on the open content uses the OGL license. My point is that it would less risk to have everything as open content than have a closed source software referencing data files released under the OGL. For...

If you really want to be safe in distributing software based on the OGL content, then use a open source license and make the source code available. Then there is no question that you are giving the software users the same permission to share and modify the open content as you had. Like all IP...

And to note some of those licenses whose clauses were adapted by the OGL were tested in courts and upheld.

The OGL is attached to the text. What you and other don't get what happens after the initial release. As the Wikipedia article you cite notes there are different kinds of licenses. The elements of a license for IP include the terms, and other limitations of the license. And as stated in...

A copyright license is not a contract. It is a form of permission granting your certain right that you did not have prior to the license. A license can be part of a contract like the one I made with Judges Guild. In exchange for royalties and periodic reports of sales I was given a license to...