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="Mistwell" data-source="post: 8887151" data-attributes="member: 2525">Most of the text isn't there. For example: "A. Content Covered i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition."None of that, other than the heading, is likely what the actual license says. The real text is going to be a list of included things, with words like, "Including, but not limited to" and references to a specific attachment of the SRD, and references back to defined words. Another example:"B. Works Covered This license only applies to materials You create for use in or as roleplaying games and as game supplements and only as printed media and static electronic files such as epubs or pdfs. It does not allow the distribution of any other form of media. And does not apply to creation of anything else."This is not at all what the license is likely to say. There is going to be a big long list of stuff you could create, and different mediums and forms, and there will be a reference to time frames, and a list of forms of media you cannot use with a "including, but not limited to" , and a list preceding "anything else" of everything the lawyers could think of to exclude here, which likely ends with general type language. Almost none of this document is real licensing language. This is the sort of document an attorney writes to explain the legalese of a license to a non-attorney client.And it's HORRIBLY DANGEROUS for them to be doing this. If they explain anything wrong, if they leave anything meaningful out, if they spin something a certain way which could misdirect the other party from seeing a risk to themselves, if any of that happens it can really come back to bite WOTC in a lawsuit later. And it very likely waives claims of theirs to "see a lawyer" because they just represented to the other party that this is a fair and accurate explanation and all someone would need to understand this document. It's just really unwise and feels like something an inexperienced in house lawyer might do (which, 20 some years ago, would have been me at a company) without realizing the risk ramifications of providing such a "commentary" document with a license.</blockquote>

Verification