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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 8907204" data-attributes="member: 6804070">IANAL, but after a careful read through here are my thoughts:First, "giving the core mechanics" is the height of arrogance. Game mechanics already are well understood not to be able to be protected as intellectual property, and therefore WotC is giving us nothing we don't already have.OGL 1.21(b) "static files" is a dubious classification. Every digital file is static, until it is changed. Such changes can be done systematically to epubs and pdfs just as well as any file type. What are data types that this does not apply to? And what is the attempt to protect? What are they trying to protect or prevent? Database derived character management applications?6(f) Anything illegal is already covered under 6(e), so therefore any illegal hate speech etc is already covered and leads this to indicate that the purpose of this section is not to actually prevent illegal hate speech (etc), but for some other unstated reason. No definition of the terms are defined and with no means for third party arbitration or legal intervention, effectively means that WotC can declare anything void under this section and there is no recourse to the creator (i.e. this section could easily be used to void competitive content). 9(d) Effectively means that the first time this license is challenged in court, and any part of it is deemed void, WotC can pull the entire license from everyone. Effectively making all previous content released under the OGL 1.2 unlicensed and illegal. Therefore this is not an irrevocable license. Not acceptable.9(e) How can one even support removing the ability to dispute a legal contract via a class action or joint action? This does not, to me, indicate good will and faith that they are doing "the right thing". But rather that they expect to be challenged, and want to minimize the feasibility of their future actions in regards to this license by making it so most potential complainants could not afford to pursue action.9(g) Why? Again this indicates bad faith and the expectation of legal action against this license. Why bother to release it if you expect action against it?VTT PolicyNo working definition of what a VTT is. And limiting such to "replicating sitting around the table" is very unimaginative, and debatable. I would argue that current VTT's in many ways go beyond the experience of sitting around the table and therefore already might not be covered by this policy. And their example of animating a magic missile spell is already troublesome and well within current VTT technologies.Static content... see comment on 1(b) above.In short, this VTT policy adds nothing to the community. It only appears to be an attempt to limit VTT development in some uncertain way without a clear intent.I'll admit, this is better than there first attempt, but it has a long way to go.</blockquote>

Verification