Just got a mail from DMsG telling me they are pulling all extensions for sale out

[Valyar]

This is what happens when modders in Foundry violate in very brutal way every copyright. I am surprised that Hasbro waited so long and didn't send the big guns already.

[Jiminimonka]

This is what happens when modders in Foundry violate in very brutal way every copyright. I am surprised that Hasbro waited so long and didn't send the big guns already.

Don't know anything about Foundry modders and their ways. FGU is better than that thing anyway.

[LordEntrails]

I don't think it's not that WotC doesn't want the extensions or the community sales, but rather that they never planned for it. That makes lawyers jumpy/cautious.

If you actually read the Community Content Agreement which is what authors agree to when they post something, it is wholly inadequate to license software. It just doesn't address software code in any effective way. And, if you were to apply what it says about creative content other than images, it would mean that all the code written by one extension author can be used by any other extension author on the Guild. Not sure all the extension authors understand that. There are other things too, such as harm to your computer etc.

But, anyway, think of it like a machine built to dispense little toys. And that anyone can upload a toy and the machine will sell the toy for anyone who comes by the train station etc. But then someone goes and starts putting sandwiches and food in the machine for it to sell. The machine owners come buy and see that food is being sold and think to themselves "Uh oh, what happens if someone buys one of these sandwiches and gets sick? We're not license by the health department to sell food. We need to not allow people to sell food! (Not that we don't want to make money from them, but if we allow food to be sold, we are liable for things we didn't plan for.)"

Not that a machine can't be made to sell food (software code), but this one was not made or licensed to do that.

[Kelrugem]

I don't think it's not that WotC doesn't want the extensions or the community sales, but rather that they never planned for it. That makes lawyers jumpy/cautious.

If you actually read the Community Content Agreement which is what authors agree to when they post something, it is wholly inadequate to license software. It just doesn't address software code in any effective way. And, if you were to apply what it says about creative content other than images, it would mean that all the code written by one extension author can be used by any other extension author on the Guild. Not sure all the extension authors understand that. There are other things too, such as harm to your computer etc.

But, anyway, think of it like a machine built to dispense little toys. And that anyone can upload a toy and the machine will sell the toy for anyone who comes by the train station etc. But then someone goes and starts putting sandwiches and food in the machine for it to sell. The machine owners come buy and see that food is being sold and think to themselves "Uh oh, what happens if someone buys one of these sandwiches and gets sick? We're not license by the health department to sell food. We need to not allow people to sell food! (Not that we don't want to make money from them, but if we allow food to be sold, we are liable for things we didn't plan for.)"

Not that a machine can't be made to sell food (software code), but this one was not made or licensed to do that.

Yeah, I completely agree I think it is wrong now to say that WotC acts with an "evil purpose" or that Foundry has to do something with that (EDIT: as some others said, not you, LordEntrails ). As one sees in Doug's answer, WotC was simply not aware of what extensions are and that they actually exist (on Dmsguild). That shows that they put up the agreement just with modules in mind, which makes sense as others said, because code stuff has not really something to do with 5e, it is then about a VTT on which you can play 5e but which is strictly speaking a programme and not related to the IP of D&D in a sense like adventure modules etc. Maybe one could even argue that the agreement between SmiteWorks and WotC/Dmsguild is strictly speaking not allowing extensions (but I do not know how it is formulated). At least the agreement does not fit for such things, especially the exclusivity agreement which just causes problems then. As it happened here: SmiteWorks needed to ask Dmsguild whether they are allowed to integrate a code based on their programme. And WotC suddenly has "responsibility" for that. I can understand when WotC does not want to be connected to that, or that they at least now take a step back first. (A step they never willingly did as for modules)

As others mentioned, with the FG forge things can just be better, especially with respect to licenses and it is easier for SmiteWorks to approach developers about integrating their code

[Myrdin Potter]

There is some direct link to 5e. Anything that adds spell effects and uses all the spells that are not in the SRD need to be sold at a place like DMsGuild.com. Any extension that just works on the 5e ruleset also has a link. They specifically don't want you to create your own world, but do accept generic modules that don't have additional world info are OK. The license carves out art from being grabbed by WoTC but everything else is.

[SilentRuin]

There is some direct link to 5e. Anything that adds spell effects and uses all the spells that are not in the SRD need to be sold at a place like DMsGuild.com. Any extension that just works on the 5e ruleset also has a link. They specifically don't want you to create your own world, but do accept generic modules that don't have additional world info are OK. The license carves out art from being grabbed by WoTC but everything else is.

I can vouch that this is no longer true in DMsG. My extensions are written for 5E rulesets and have no connection to data - just FGU 5E(based on CoreRPG) ruleset code. And it was whacked. First. So its any extension at all now that is not allowed.

[Kelrugem]

There is some direct link to 5e. Anything that adds spell effects and uses all the spells that are not in the SRD need to be sold at a place like DMsGuild.com. Any extension that just works on the 5e ruleset also has a link. They specifically don't want you to create your own world, but do accept generic modules that don't have additional world info are OK. The license carves out art from being grabbed by WoTC but everything else is.

From a user perspective, yes. But such agreements are heavily based on terminology, modules faciliate 5e data and add new things, while the code adds automation for such data to some programme. I would not wonder when that actually makes a difference in licenses and agreements. I cannot simply upload a module for 5e using their adventure modules, but I can always upload an extension or my own VTT automating effects and stuff from the 5e rules arising in certain modules and that has then nothing to do with WotC (then only with SmiteWorks when it is about extensions for FG) So, there is certainly a difference in agreements when it is about modules and extensions Data is not the same as automating rules from that point of view The copyright is distributed differently etc.

[SilentRuin]

I'm not sure where this puts my purely FGU 5e (which is based on CoreRPG) ruleset code architecture (no data) extensions. Asking them for clarification - but also figured I'd ask here based on this mail DMsG just sent me.

Wizards of the Coast has given us more clarification regarding Fantasy Grounds file types. As a result, we have decided that it isn’t the file type itself that goes against our site guidelines, but the function of the extension that could potentially be in breach of the community content guidelines.
If the extension combines content that is supplemental to a product specifically designed with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition rules and/or uses Wizards of the Coast IP that is licensed for use on DMsGuild, then it is approved to stay on our platform.
If an extension is designed in a way that it could be used by another game system or is a general update or alteration to the Fantasy Grounds platform itself, then it is better suited for DriveThruRPG.
If you can provide a list of your titles that you believe would be better suited for publication on DriveThruRPG, we can migrate those titles over to DriveThruRPG for you. For us to get started, all you would need is a publisher account on DriveThruRPG.
I apologize for any inconvenience. I know this came as a surprise, for you and for us as well.

[celestian]

This is what happens when modders in Foundry violate in very brutal way every copyright. I am surprised that Hasbro waited so long and didn't send the big guns already.

I've seen folks suggest this more than once but seen no evidence of it.

[SilentRuin]

I'm not sure where this puts my purely FGU 5e (which is based on CoreRPG) ruleset code architecture (no data) extensions. Asking them for clarification - but also figured I'd ask here based on this mail DMsG just sent me.

Wizards of the Coast has given us more clarification regarding Fantasy Grounds file types. As a result, we have decided that it isn’t the file type itself that goes against our site guidelines, but the function of the extension that could potentially be in breach of the community content guidelines.
If the extension combines content that is supplemental to a product specifically designed with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition rules and/or uses Wizards of the Coast IP that is licensed for use on DMsGuild, then it is approved to stay on our platform.
If an extension is designed in a way that it could be used by another game system or is a general update or alteration to the Fantasy Grounds platform itself, then it is better suited for DriveThruRPG.
If you can provide a list of your titles that you believe would be better suited for publication on DriveThruRPG, we can migrate those titles over to DriveThruRPG for you. For us to get started, all you would need is a publisher account on DriveThruRPG.
I apologize for any inconvenience. I know this came as a surprise, for you and for us as well.

I am totally confused - now they are telling me this...

So in the case of the title in this thread, Combat Groups Extension, it could be used with Savage Worlds or Dungeon World, it alters the way FG works, but isn't a part of an adventure module for Dungeons & Dragons.

Looking at another of your titles for an example is https://www.dmsguild.com/product/324...-Grounds-Unity. This uses D&D 5e mechanics to work. "Damage is carried back to your true form (as per RAW), and you revert to your true form automatically." This title would be ok on DMsGuild as it is specifically for and uses Dungeons and Dragons rules.

Your Combat Groups Extension would be better suited for DTRPG and we can migrate it there if you have a publisher account set up.

But combat extensions is limited in ruleset use to 5E only - how can this not be still ok if the others are ok? I'm utterly confused.