Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 8902097" data-attributes="member: 6680772">Not so much doubling down, but certainly not a retraction or mea culpa. I don’t imagine that people unhappy with the first episode will be happy with the follow-up.The episode mainly deals with three issues they didn’t have the time to go into previously: 1) Does what Dancey say about the intent of the OGL matter? (They fall on the side that it does not, and speaking generally, probably wouldn’t even be admissible.) 2) Is the OGL an open source document? (They think not, because it restricts the content that can be used [“can be copied verbatim” in GPL vs. “cannot be copied verbatim” in OGL 1.0], and while any additions to the source code must also be open source in GPL, this is explicitly not the case for the OGL. Therefore, if Dancey represented to 3PP that they were getting into an open source environment, he was being misleading.) 3) Can game mechanics be copyrighted? (They disagree with LegalEagle and the EFF, at least as far as RPGs go, inasmuch as many RPG rules seem to fall under “expression,” the rules for dragons being called out as an example.)Legal interpretations aside, IMO their understanding of the situation as a whole is hampered by their inability to wrap their minds around why a commercial corporation would release their rules in an open license in the first place. Accordingly, they take WotC’s claim that the OGL was not intended for other big companies (ostensible competitors) at face value. But of course, the whole point of the OGL was not to help the little guy, the homebrewer, but for other companies to publish adventures and supplements that would feed into the D&amp;D market. So they are mystified that Paizo was allowed to simply repackage and sell the whole game.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 8902097, member: 6680772"] Not so much doubling down, but certainly not a retraction or mea culpa. I don’t imagine that people unhappy with the first episode will be happy with the follow-up. The episode mainly deals with three issues they didn’t have the time to go into previously: 1) Does what Dancey say about the intent of the OGL matter? (They fall on the side that it does not, and speaking generally, probably wouldn’t even be admissible.) 2) Is the OGL an open source document? (They think not, because it restricts the content that can be used [“can be copied verbatim” in GPL vs. “cannot be copied verbatim” in OGL 1.0], and while any additions to the source code must also be open source in GPL, this is explicitly not the case for the OGL. Therefore, if Dancey represented to 3PP that they were getting into an open source environment, he was being misleading.) 3) Can game mechanics be copyrighted? (They disagree with LegalEagle and the EFF, at least as far as RPGs go, inasmuch as many RPG rules seem to fall under “expression,” the rules for dragons being called out as an example.) Legal interpretations aside, IMO their understanding of the situation as a whole is hampered by their inability to wrap their minds around why a commercial corporation would release their rules in an open license in the first place. Accordingly, they take WotC’s claim that the OGL was not intended for other big companies (ostensible competitors) at face value. But of course, the whole point of the OGL was not to help the little guy, the homebrewer, but for other companies to publish adventures and supplements that would feed into the D&D market. So they are mystified that Paizo was allowed to simply repackage and sell the whole game. [/QUOTE]

Verification