3 ms·

But your bank analogy is still flawed, isn't it? This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company usi

by the_af 4y ago

But your bank analogy is still flawed, isn't it? This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Remember, this runs on human brains, not on computers or ATMs. > No, not at all? How is it "under their control"? They can publish a new version of it but that has nothing to do with you unless you want it to. It is under their control because they are the only ones that can modify, add or remove provisions to the license. This is like a file format where only one company can determine the standard: it sucks for everyone else! At best you're playing catch-up, at worst the owner can bar you from using the format. A consortium would be less risky. And apparently the current situation shows it was very risky indeed!

lmm 4y ago
> This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Hold on, we're just talking about the license, aren't we? I thought the question was about why they were using the OGL, which is very much just the legalese/contract.
- the_af 4y ago
  To be honest I think I managed to confuse myself. But that's because I think everyone is conflating everything in this case. Some people seem to think the OGL is the "blood" of these third party companies, without which their business model doesn't exist. Surprisingly -- but I have trouble believing this -- some think OGL-licensed games are at risk even if they are unrelated to the D&D franchise and its gameplay mechanics (I hope this is just a misunderstanding!). But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this).
  - lmm 4y ago
    > But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this). I think it's probably fine. Like, if WotC is willing to sell their product on these terms, it's probably safe for me to sell my product on the same terms, especially if we're direct competitors. Obviously there's a risk, but there's a risk in not competing too. Compare price matching.

by the_af 4y ago

lmm 4y ago

> This isn't a case of a bank following suit and copying another bank's offering, this is a case of a company using terms of another company and riding on their "infrastructure" (IP, licenses, etc). For a RPG company, these intangibles are infrastructure, not legalese. Hold on, we're just talking about the license, aren't we? I thought the question was about why they were using the OGL, which is very much just the legalese/contract.

the_af 4y ago
To be honest I think I managed to confuse myself. But that's because I think everyone is conflating everything in this case. Some people seem to think the OGL is the "blood" of these third party companies, without which their business model doesn't exist. Surprisingly -- but I have trouble believing this -- some think OGL-licensed games are at risk even if they are unrelated to the D&D franchise and its gameplay mechanics (I hope this is just a misunderstanding!). But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this).
- lmm 4y ago
  > But let's say this is just legalese. Does it seem wise to let your core product be sold under contractual terms defined by your direct business competitor, which by their own admission has no interest in "funding the competition"? (they've been quoted saying this). I think it's probably fine. Like, if WotC is willing to sell their product on these terms, it's probably safe for me to sell my product on the same terms, especially if we're direct competitors. Obviously there's a risk, but there's a risk in not competing too. Compare price matching.