Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Protection from Chaos Part XI: The D&D Next Online Playtest Agreement
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5931046" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Frylock, thanks for joining in! I remember your columns on the GSL, which I found interesting and enjoyable. Given what I see as a tendency on these forums to overreact to fairly banal contractual and licence terms, it's good to have a practising lawyer providing ideas and interpretations. (Unfortunately XP is disabled at the moment.)</p><p></p><p>In Victoria the general limitation period on contractual actions is 6 years, with no difference between oral and written agreements. I don't think other Australian jurisdictions draw this sort of distinction either - we do have writing requirements on some contracts and assignments (derived mostly from the Statute of Frauds) but they're not applicable in this context, and don't affect the limitation period.</p><p></p><p>In Australian law, an FAQ could set up an estoppel against the party who published the FAQ, especially in this sort of context in which the contract has been drafted by the FAQ-publishing party without opportunity for negotiation of the terms by the other party.</p><p></p><p>But I have no idea how estoppel works (if at all) in US private law!</p><p></p><p></p><p>The way I read the confidentiality clause is that they want the <em>text</em> to remain confidential, but want discussion <em>about</em> the text and the experience of playing with it to be public.</p><p></p><p>I think this is definitely the case. It has produced some slightly odd experiences for me: normally when I want to talk about a contentious rule I will quote the text with a page reference (an academic habit!), but in this case I find myself having to paraphrase, because the OPTA prohibits direct quotation.</p><p></p><p>When providing feedback to WotC, the situation would obviously be different - in that context, I think quotation would be OK.</p><p></p><p>I think if you were playtesting with people who hadn't agreed to the OPTA, you'd be violating the confidentiality clause if you showed your character sheet, or any part of the rules documents, to those people - because under that clause you agree not to "display" the playtest materials.</p><p></p><p>Sure, I don't disagree with that at all. My view is that the OPTA is a pretty reasonable attempt by WotC to maintain (i) a degree of control over their IP, and (ii) a degree of control over the playtest. The only way they can achieve (ii), given that they are a private actor, is to try and create rights under contract. Which is what I read the OPTA as an attempt to do.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5931046, member: 42582"] Frylock, thanks for joining in! I remember your columns on the GSL, which I found interesting and enjoyable. Given what I see as a tendency on these forums to overreact to fairly banal contractual and licence terms, it's good to have a practising lawyer providing ideas and interpretations. (Unfortunately XP is disabled at the moment.) In Victoria the general limitation period on contractual actions is 6 years, with no difference between oral and written agreements. I don't think other Australian jurisdictions draw this sort of distinction either - we do have writing requirements on some contracts and assignments (derived mostly from the Statute of Frauds) but they're not applicable in this context, and don't affect the limitation period. In Australian law, an FAQ could set up an estoppel against the party who published the FAQ, especially in this sort of context in which the contract has been drafted by the FAQ-publishing party without opportunity for negotiation of the terms by the other party. But I have no idea how estoppel works (if at all) in US private law! The way I read the confidentiality clause is that they want the [I]text[/I] to remain confidential, but want discussion [I]about[/I] the text and the experience of playing with it to be public. I think this is definitely the case. It has produced some slightly odd experiences for me: normally when I want to talk about a contentious rule I will quote the text with a page reference (an academic habit!), but in this case I find myself having to paraphrase, because the OPTA prohibits direct quotation. When providing feedback to WotC, the situation would obviously be different - in that context, I think quotation would be OK. I think if you were playtesting with people who hadn't agreed to the OPTA, you'd be violating the confidentiality clause if you showed your character sheet, or any part of the rules documents, to those people - because under that clause you agree not to "display" the playtest materials. Sure, I don't disagree with that at all. My view is that the OPTA is a pretty reasonable attempt by WotC to maintain (i) a degree of control over their IP, and (ii) a degree of control over the playtest. The only way they can achieve (ii), given that they are a private actor, is to try and create rights under contract. Which is what I read the OPTA as an attempt to do. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Protection from Chaos Part XI: The D&D Next Online Playtest Agreement
Top