Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse

[dave2008]

Why are you trusting their word on this? WotC's word is worthless unless done in a way that is legally binding.

I am not taking them at their word. I continue to reserve judgment until the final product.

 

[mamba]

Do I want the standard contract language removed or revised? Yes! But it doesn't surprise me that the first public draft has language like this.

the irrevocable part is not standard language though, they went out of their way to make it mean something else in the confines of OGL 1.2

 

[dave2008]

That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.

FYI, from the last question in the OGL 1.2 FAQ:

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.

 

[Morrus]

I am taking them at their word

I am not taking them at their word

I am so confused!

 

[mamba]

By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:

1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.

They have specifically said both of these things. Those are there plans.

They might be thinking about the former, there is no way this is an open conversation however. It is mostly a distraction and buying time, and only marginally a conversation about 1.2, and even then they are rather firm in how far they will change it, no matter what we say.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am so confused!

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposing ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
-William S. Preston, Esq.

 

[dave2008]

I am so confused!

Context is important!

To clarify, I am taking them at there word that what they say they are doing (listening to feed back and releasing more content to CC and OGL 1.2), they will indeed do. I am not taking them at their word that they will make the changes needed, IMO, to make the OGL 1.2 truly open and superior license to 1.0(a). Or that their intent is anything other than what is legally bound in the license. I don't need to, the proof, one way or the other, will be the final document.

 

[dave2008]

They might be thinking about the former, there is no way this is an open conversation however. It is mostly a distraction and buying time, and only marginally a conversation about 1.2, and even then they are rather firm in how far they will change it, no matter what we say.

We have no proof of this viewpoint. You choose to believe this, I choose to believe something else. Ultimately, it doesn't mater what we choose to believe, what matters is what the final response from WotC is.

 

[Blue]

By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:

1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.

They have specifically said both of these things. Those are there plans.

I judged them by their actions so far, not their words. But you are correct, you said "planning".

 

[Scribe]

We have no proof of this viewpoint. You choose to believe this, I choose to believe something else. Ultimately, it doesn't mater what we choose to believe, what matters is what the final response from WotC is.

If we gave WotC the benefit of the doubt, they would have railroaded us to hell already. The only reason they have backed off in any way (and none on what actually matters) is because there was a united response of "No." when they got caught and called out for it.