NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8882897" data-attributes="member: 42582">It's hard to work out exactly what is going on, because most of the leaks about the messaging are coming through channels that are unclear about the legal concepts in play (eg the difference between "revoking the licence" in the sense of rescinding the offer: "revoking the licence" in the sense of trying to require parties to the new licence to give up all their existing rights under the old licence; and "revoking the licence" in the sense of undoing the existing set of interlocking agreements that have arisen out of the existing OGL).Upthread I agree with this post:And I am still inclined to do so.Which is to say, of the three options I have flagged in parentheses above, the first and second would be in play, but not the third.Which would make this a rerun of the GSL, probably with a more permissive SRD based around copyrighted text more than trade dress (which I think is also implied by the press release calling it a revision to the OGL - this suggests a licence primarily focused on copyrighted text) but with the demand for royalties. My personal guess would be that someone at WotC is looking at royalties coming in via DM's Guild and wanting to secure something similar from other licensed publications. The fact that Paizo have said nothing significant makes me wonder whether (i) they have had discussions with WotC and are waiting for the next step, or (ii) they are consulting with their own legal team. To me, (i) seems slightly more likely given that we know their are 3PPs under NDAs.</blockquote>

Verification