Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dausuul" data-source="post: 8914637" data-attributes="member: 58197">The exact definition depends on who you ask, but the basic principles are that you don't have to pay to use the licensed material; there are minimal restrictions on how you can use the licensed material; and the license cannot be withdrawn or altered as long as you abide by the terms. &quot;Minimal restrictions&quot; is stuff like including an attribution notice, and allowing others to license the material on the same terms from you.(Also, I would argue there is an implied principle that the license can't require you to give up a bunch of unrelated rights.)The 1.2 draft meets the first principle (unlike the 1.1 draft), but not the others. The restriction to printed media and static files violates the second. The morality clause violates both the second and third. There are a boatload of &quot;you can't take us to court for pretty much anything, and if you somehow do take us to court, you can't do anything that might help you win your case&quot; clauses that violate the implied fourth.Note that the original OGL is not a fully open license either by this definition; it follows the first three principles, but violates the implied fourth with restrictions on use of WotC trademarks. However, that is just one modest restriction, far less egregious than all the stuff in 1.2.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dausuul, post: 8914637, member: 58197"] The exact definition depends on who you ask, but the basic principles are that you don't have to pay to use the licensed material; there are minimal restrictions on how you can use the licensed material; and the license cannot be withdrawn or altered as long as you abide by the terms. "Minimal restrictions" is stuff like including an attribution notice, and allowing others to license the material on the same terms from you. (Also, I would argue there is an implied principle that the license can't require you to give up a bunch of unrelated rights.) The 1.2 draft meets the first principle (unlike the 1.1 draft), but not the others. The restriction to printed media and static files violates the second. The morality clause violates both the second and third. There are a boatload of "you can't take us to court for pretty much anything, and if you somehow do take us to court, you can't do anything that might help you win your case" clauses that violate the implied fourth. Note that the original OGL is not a [I]fully[/I] open license either by this definition; it follows the first three principles, but violates the implied fourth with restrictions on use of WotC trademarks. However, that is just one modest restriction, far less egregious than all the stuff in 1.2. [/QUOTE]

Verification