dave2008
Legend
I don't necessarily disagree, but that is a different thing IMO. I don't need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I will judge them on the final product. Until then, I will push them to make the best product possible.
Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse
Scribe
Legend
By the time there is a final, its too late. They are not worthy of trust. I mean I get it, we are on polar opposites of the 'glass is half X' question, but any kind of 'lets see what we get' is too late I'm afraid.
dave2008
Legend
I specifically said (in the post you quoted): "...I will push them to make the best product possible." How do you interpret that as "lets see what we get?"
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
So this is part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this, where what is clearly written in the OGL 1.2 is claimed not to be. I won't ascribe motives to your action, like you said I thought Hasbro was evil or that I want to burn things to the ground.
Let's look at 9(d), bolding mine:
Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.
If you would like to claim this isn't there, then you are mistaken. If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety", then you are also wrong.
So please stop trying to put words in my mouth that I think they are evil or claiming something isn't there. Because you are incorrect in both assumptions. I know I don't consider them evil, and it's demonstratable that there is a clause that could self destruct it all in the current OGL.
I don't really care who at Wizards of the Coast put it there, just that it has been approved to be there. And that it differs from the boilerplate I've seen time and time again about severability to stand out as a conscious choice. I'm also not saying they are planning to use it. But when he brought up the morality clause, it
Yes, we can ask to have it removed. I have, in polite tones, in the survey. Because I don't think Hasbro is "evil". I do think that new senior management, likely under pressure from outside investors and/or the parent company, have made regretable descisions that show that the amount of trust we can and should have in not just a company but all future management of said company (and in this case it's any company) needs to be moderated. But I don't think they are evil, and am actively trying to work with them to bring them back in alignment with the fanbase.
So put away your "pitchforks and torches" comments and stop trying to demonize me to win a discussion. Instead engage what was said. They at this point have only included the 5e SRD in their comments about OGL, not the 3ed or 3.5 SRDs, and there is language in the OGL which could be used to self-destruct the same thing. Both of these are true, and that's what I said.
(The rest of your comment below.)
Or comments like the one I saw recently, wherein someone claimed that amending the morality clause to allow an appeal to a neutral third party wouldn't be good enough because .... Hasbro would just bribe anyone to get what they want.
That's not a "self-destruct" clause. Look, if you believe that Hasbro is just evil, then why bother commenting? They're just evil, everything they do is evil, and you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department.
Instead, you have to look at things rationally. They had to have their legal to a complete about-face and draft a new legal document in a short period of time. Which they did. They are asking for feedback to it.
Why is that version of the severance clause in there? Because this was drafted by Hasbro's attorneys. Not you. When your own attorney drafts documents, they usually do so ... to protect you, and with the assumption that you will do the right thing. So from their point of view, they would have a concern that one of the many people screaming to "Burn it all down," would challenge one of the provisions that was important to Hasbro (say, the morality portion that protects the brand), get it invalidated, and then continue on. That's probably why it is there.
Now we have the chance for feedback. If this is actually a concern, just suggest they replace it with the CC BY-SA severance provision-
To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.
This would demand reformation first, then severance, and finally makes explicit that nothing is waived or consented to by the licensor. Again, this would be constructive feedback.
But if people are just getting out torches and pitchforks because Hasbro* is incurably evil, then there's not much point in any of these conversations, right?
*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE!
mamba
Legend
this sums it up nicely, but it’s not like you have more proof of your viewpoint. If anything it is contradicted by basically all of WotC’s actions concerning the OGL in the last two months or so, which incidentally is why I have a different one
Scribe
Legend
Justice and Rule
Hero
So this part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this (claiming that this is a "self-destruct" clause buried in there). Or comments like the one I saw recently, wherein someone claimed that amending the morality clause to allow an appeal to a neutral third party wouldn't be good enough because .... Hasbro would just bribe anyone to get what they want.
That's not a "self-destruct" clause. Look, if you believe that Hasbro is just evil, then why bother commenting? They're just evil, everything they do is evil, and you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department.
Instead, you have to look at things rationally. They had to have their legal to a complete about-face and draft a new legal document in a short period of time. Which they did. They are asking for feedback to it.
Why is that version of the severance clause in there? Because this was drafted by Hasbro's attorneys. Not you. When your own attorney drafts documents, they usually do so ... to protect you, and with the assumption that you will do the right thing. So from their point of view, they would have a concern that one of the many people screaming to "Burn it all down," would challenge one of the provisions that was important to Hasbro (say, the morality portion that protects the brand), get it invalidated, and then continue on. That's probably why it is there.
Now we have the chance for feedback. If this is actually a concern, just suggest they replace it with the CC BY-SA severance provision-
To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.
This would demand reformation first, then severance, and finally makes explicit that nothing is waived or consented to by the licensor. Again, this would be constructive feedback.
But if people are just getting out torches and pitchforks because Hasbro* is incurably evil, then there's not much point in any of these conversations, right?
*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE!
I feel like acting like there isn't a rhyme or reason to what's going on, that this is all innocuous really has to ignore a lot of WotC's actions up until now. Like, their lawsuits against Weis/Hickman regarding their Dragonlance book, as well as their lawsuit against GF9, along with incredibly aggressive new "VTT Policy" makes it pretty easy to draw conclusions about their intentions. It seems less rational to ignore such actions when judging their intentions and instead frame them more as "mistakes" in need of feedback.
I wonder where that mindset was when you made a giant post about a conspiracy theory that Paizo was behind the OGL leaks.
dave2008
Legend
Actually, one could argue that the actual first public release (OGL 1.2) is proof that they are willing to listen and make changes.this sums it up nicely, but it’s not like you have more proof of your viewpoint. If anything it is contradicted by basically all of WotC’s actions concerning the OGL in the last two months or so, which incidentally is why I have a different one
Justice and Rule
Hero
I mean, given their proposed VTT policy, it'd probably be easier to argue that a lot of that is smokescreen while the most deleterious stuff is still in there.
dave2008
Legend
IDK, it seems pretty rational that a lawyer would see standard contract language and understand why it is there. And as far as I can remember Snarf never said they were "mistakes." The only mistake is assuming nefarious intent because standard contract language is in there (some of which also appears in the CC and GPL).
Similar Threads
