< ^ txt
Wed Jan 11 06:00:01 EST 2023
========================================
Slept from nine-thirty to six without waking.
Cloudy.
A slight chance of rain in the late morning and afternoon.
Highs in the lower 40s.
Southeast winds up to 10 mph.
Chance of rain 20 percent.
# Work
* 10:15 AM - 10:45 AM Weekly cloud foundations working group
* 11:00 AM - 12:00 PM ELMS ML/NSP comment classification and AI doucment/ attachment discussion
* 01:00 PM - 02:00 PM Case management stakeholder communication
* 02:00 PM - 02:30 PM Box/OneDrive/Feith (Bobby Putname)
# Home
* [x] sign up for personal AWS account, enable MFA, set a budget
Rode the exercise bike for ten minutes in the morning.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
> According to leaks reported last week, the company that owns Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) is planning to revoke the open license that has, since the year 2000, applied to a wide range of unofficial, commercial products that build on the mechanics of Dungeons and Dragons. The report indicates that this wouldn’t simply be a change going forward, but would affect existing works that relied on the license. The old license would be revoked for existing uses, and people who have used on it will be forced to adopt new terms or renegotiate with the company, Wizards of the Coast, a subsidiary of game giant Hasbro.
>
> Obviously, this would be a rude and unfair thing to do to people who have accepted the invitation of the open gaming license (OGL) to create new games and stories that build upon Dungeons and Dragons. But would it be legal?
>
> Even more interesting, would revoking the OGL actually give some third parties more freedom to operate, given that the OGL forced them to promise not to do some things that copyright and trademark law otherwise permit?
>
> […]
>
> For most users, accepting this license almost certainly means you have fewer rights to use elements of Dungeons and Dragons than you would otherwise. For example, absent this agreement, you have a legal right to create a work using noncopyrightable elements of D&D or making fair use of copyrightable elements and to say that that work is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons. In many contexts you also have the right to use the logo to name the game (something called “nominative fair use” in trademark law). You can certainly use some of the language, concepts, themes, descriptions, and so forth. Accepting this license almost certainly means signing away rights to use these elements. Like Sauron’s rings of power, the gift of the OGL came with strings attached.
>
> The primary benefit is that you know under what terms Wizards of the Coast will choose not to sue you, so you can avoid having to prove your fair use rights or engage in an expensive legal battle over copyrightability in court.
>
> […]
>
> Some have pointed to the word “perpetual” to argue that the license is irrevocable, but these are different concepts in the law of licenses. Perpetual means that the license will not expire due to time passing, that’s all. In RPG terms, consider the invisibility spell. “Perpetual” is like the duration; the spell lasts for one hour. But the caster can dismiss it at any time: that’s like revocation. And if the invisible person makes an attack, the spell ends automatically: that’s like a license terminating because of a condition being met, usually breaching the terms of the license. Just like the magic spell, these are three independent concepts.
Washed laundry.
Servings: grains 6/6, fruit 1/4, vegetables 3/4, dairy 4/2, meat 1/3, nuts 1/0.5
Breakfast: pineapple, carrots, tomatoes, naan, egg
Lunch: steak burrito
Afternoon snack: coffee
Dinner: macaroni and cheese, tomatoes
< ^ txt