No one is forcing other companies to accept a license. Just try, for a second, to imagine this from Hasbro's point of view.
I am afraid my mindset is so removed from an MBA that that is difficult to truly get into Hasbro's PoV. But if I in charge of a brand as stupendously successful as D&D has been for the last few years I would keep things going more or less as they were, rather than upending everything.
Right? We should just stay mad and see what else drops
Not sure (now) if this was sarcasm or you actually meant it, but wither way: Yes, that is exactly what we should do!
This is past my line in the sand, so if anything, they are conceding, at least from where I stand. Some people are unable to recognize a victory when it is staring them in the face it seems
Nothing has changed in practice, so if they are over your lines they always were.
One more time… we don’t have to pretend. They are in active litigation with an entity that is attempting to use their marks for their own, bigoted ends.
Which has nothing to do with the OGL, and is therefore a red herring.
They're not going to use this to take down any material that give Goblins ability score penalties, or make orcs evil.
No, they are going to use it against anyone making money they think should be theirs.
I hope you realized after writing this how easy it is to turn around. In the situation you describe, would your spouse have a case to deny your divorce request by pointing out that your marriage agreement was perpetual? (To be clear, in most legal jurisdictions I know of, they wouldn't.)
The marriage was entered into on the understanding that divorce was a possibility. The OGL was not.
Your analogy equates two individuals to a corporation and thousands of licensees. It's not that apt.
It has its limitations. But in the ways that it is different, this is worse.
Since Kobold Press is a corporation and Wolfgang Baur is a person, I don't see how Baur telling a joke could impact the use of this new non-open OGL.
You don't have to see it. If WotC can see it (or claims to) you're toast.
I don't know Curse the Heart, but I was very supportive on tic tok and twitter about the Eat the rich adventure... in fact I got told by many I was over reaching saying it should have stayed up as is
So you admit that you thought WotC abused their power under that licence, but you are still saying we can totally trust them not to do so under this one.
I get it, you don't want any compromise, it is 100% your way or nothing as far as you are concerned. In what way do you think anything you say here is changing my mind?
Well yes, obviously. Cultural vandalism does not become OK if they pinky promise not to do it again.
that is not a joke... That is sexual assault not a punchline
I disagree with basically everything else you have said in this thread, but you are spot on with this one!
Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.
Which is not excuse because they could simply...not do that.
I guess these figure heavily in the upcoming film? I won't pay to watch that by the way.
Nor me. Which is part of what saddens me about this.
YOU WANT TO LAY BLAME, i just am trying to find out why you are so mad...
People are mad for the same reason they were mad last week. Because WotC are attempting an unconscionable act of cultural vandalism (not to mention destroying a bunch of people's livelihoods). Why aren't you?
Just noting that the survey appears to now be open.
OGL 1.2 survey
I have filled it in, for all that that will be worth.
Problem solved folks. I will just provide you all with the Scribe Open License (SoL) and everything will be fine!
I see what you did there! (I tried to insert the picture with the bird, but it didn't work for some reason.)
If use of that accumulated OGC depends upon WotC not exercising certain legal powers, then there is no right - just some sort of complicated permission from WotC.
There is a difference between the legal power that they actually have and the legal power they claim, and they can do damage (and have done damage) just with the claiming.
www.dndbeyond.com
