Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8882991" data-attributes="member: 20564">EDIT:  Some big changes after [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] cleared up PI vs. IP.  Big oops on my part.Mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the exact wording used.  The OGL just lets them use the exact wording, so you can refer to a spell by name, etc.  So there's a lot out there they couldn't touch anyway.And a good part of that is due to the OGL.  It took a fragmenting RPG mechanical landscape and focused people on using a core set of rules.  Reading Ryan Dancey's essays about how it would have other game companies produce material that sold D&D core books and kept players in the D&D yard.Contracts between businesses do not require that the original signee is still with the business.  If my realtor retires, my house isn't unsold, and even if circumstances for the seller have changed that doesn't allow them to rewrite the contract that we all agreed on.Which is perfectly fine, and true, and irrelevant.  They published 5e under the OGL willingly.  They did not have to.  Look at 4e, where they decided to publish under the GSL, which would have absolutely sidestepped all of this.  They could publish OneD&D under another license without problem.  But publishing "something new" under a license that explicitly contains protections against changing versions of that license doesn't negate those protection.Also, there are plenty of products that are based off of D&D 3ed or 3.5 that are published under the OGL, like Pathfinder (1st).  So even if 5e beign different was a point, changing the OGL which would affect all of them and render the point moot.Absolutely.  That someone up the corporate chain said "we want to get royalties, enter the lair of the lawyers and see if they see a way to change it", and the lawyers came up with what they thought was the best way.That doesn't mean that's the way it will shake out.  There are civil cases all the time where lawyers on both sides think the law says they shall win.I again agree - this having supposed to go out Jan 4th and take affect Jan 23rd is very much a bully move.  Only-RPG publishers run on thin margins, they are leveraging their large-corporation lawyers.Of course, since this was based on open source licenses, we might even get defenders like the EFF in addition to publishers.  (Or if it threatens the GPL then IBM might get involved like they did with SCO.)Leaking is perfect for them, I would not be surprised if they did it on purpose.  Especially with the "we can be proven wrong" thing.  It seems they are floating this, and if it gets huge backlash then they can disavow it as "new senior management didn't understand our wonderful customers, but they get it now.  We want great games that come from diversity of choice.  Woo!"</blockquote>

Verification