mamba
Legend
no, I agree with him. 1.1 was designed so no one in their right mind can accept itThat was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
no, I agree with him. 1.1 was designed so no one in their right mind can accept itThat was an interesting take. Not sure I believe it entirely. The OGL 1.1 wasn't so bad that you died from it.
There's got to be a name for the logical fallacy where you assume that people are competent and so when they do something that looks stupid it must be because it's actually part of a genius plan that you just don't understand. Is there a name for that?Specifically, he said it was a license designed for everyone never to accept.
so incompetence then, rather than malice…I don't think so - I just think WotC believed they had all the leverage and could dictate whatever terms they wanted. I imagine they were shocked when none of the big players signed on.
Because Hasbro is clearly against NFTs.get good press for taking out objectionable content and NFTs
nobody did take itThe "poison pill" analogy the Professor Game Master was using, was that OGL 1.1 was soooooo bad, nobody would take it.
you do see how your two statements contradict each other, no?Why would anyone take royalties on profits, most small companies profits are zero...
I believe it was royalties only on the revenue over 750k, so not that much at all.
no fallacy here though, it was designed so no one accepts it. They expected the big publishers to negotiate separate licenses, that part did not happenThere's got to be a name for the logical fallacy where you assume that people are competent and so when they do something that looks stupid it must be because it's actually part of a genius plan that you just don't understand. Is there a name for that?
If you made 800k and they only too 25% of the (800-750) = 12.5k.Most projects, including the large kickstarters, would lose money at 25% over 750k of revenue…
Should have been Linux brosWhat's with the "formerly known as" ?
To engage with the point, yeah probably. While I don't necessarily know that that was the main intent at best, it was probably a shrug and "well, worst case that leaves us to provide and sell more content, oh well" territory. You can really explain it all away with simple ignorance of how the thing they make actually operates. Which, if you are imported Microsoft MBA bros, yeah, certainly possible.