Search results

I have some doubts about this generalization. Torture is over-effective to the point of extracting false confessions, and the "reward" is simply that the torture will stop.

Back on board? I want to go back to ignoring them. And I'm not sure if I should do that now.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID3330993_code524875.pdf?abstractid=3316523&mirid=1

Alas. Though you could argue that open licenses are an attempt to return to how things were before the widespread adoption of copyright laws and the Berne Convention. In the grand scheme of history, overly restrictive Intellectual Property laws are innovations, not the status quo.

If you want to license your IP to someone under the CC only if they comply with additional restrictions, I suppose that's fair. It's not what WotC has done though.

It’s absolutely a no-no. Copyright attribution and fair use of a third party’s trademark are very much not the same thing. Wizards can make a reasonable request regarding attribution, but they can’t restrict anyone’s fair use rights regarding trademarks. It’s outside the scope of the CC, as per...

In regards to the CC licenses, there might be some illuminating decisions that touch on the subject. I haven't read them all. https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/cases/

When he accepted those terms to begin with? If I voluntarily enter into a contractual relationship that obliges me to act in a certain way going forward, I've voluntarily done so, presumably because I see some benefit in doing so.

Welcome to the absolute hellscape that is license compatibility analysis and linking exceptions, I guess.

This was how the OGL was intended to operate as well. Now, WotC have managed to cast doubts on the legal soundness of that. It wasn't a great a move. But we've had an interesting discussion here as a result. Thank you for your patient explanation and analyses.

Oh ye of little faith! I hope this result means that you can continue your creative business and enrich our world with the fruits of your endeavors. That said, I'd personally like to see the legacy SRDs released under the CC too.

What is definite about their current statements? They're running a "playtest" now. It's an insult more than anything.

I'm not saying that I think they will. I am saying that they can. That has some legal ramifications, I would assume.

That said, this individual might be preparing to do something, judging by the contents of this supposed letter and some anonymous statements made to Gizmodo. I would try to reach out to them if you want to explore possible options, but I wouldn't expect any statements on the record...

In the sense that such an action has a lower likelihood of success than using the OGL 1.0a as a defense against claims of copyright infringement, I believe you're right. In the sense that there is no way to go on the offensive here at all, I believe you're wrong. It just doesn't seem very prudent.

In theory, I think there are parties with grounds to sue them for anticipatory breach if and when this illegal "notice of deathorization" is supposed to take effect. Prima facie, I also think that some parties might have other grounds to pursue legal action against them right now, for tortious...

This is bigger than RPGs. Truly.

As far as I can understand, that might be considered quantum meruit. But we don't need to go there. The OGL clearly describes a situation of reciprocal consideration. It's a quid pro quo. I get to use your OGC in exchange for not using your PI or trademarks at all without a separate agreement...

Regarding consideration flowing both ways under the OGL 1.0a, this is achieved by Section 7, which severely restricts the licensee's normal rights of fair use in regards to trademarks and the declared Product Identity.

I don't think any lawyer has agreed to your position specifically, if I understand what your position is. I mused about the possibility of the OGL creating a collective of "Contributors" who are collectively obliged to act in a certain way regarding the entirety of the OGC in perpetuity, but I...