It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[glass]

But if you would like to be more clear to me, explain to me exactly how, legally, they were supposed to "backdown" even further. Feel free to explain it using any complicated terms that are necessary to make your point. To be 100% clear.

Tone can be difficult convey in text, so I will assume (once) that the belittling and high-handedness was accidental and you are actually interested in the answer (no complicated terms necessary, unless you count "deauthorise" and "assurances"):

They could have come out with a statement to the effect that they were wrong to assert that they could deauthorise the OGL 1.0a, and that they stood by their earlier assurances that it was for ever. In terms of practical difference, it would have made a little but not a lot ("cannot unring a bell", etc), but it could reasonably be described as "backing down completely". Unlike what they actually did, which is way short of that.

Nobody is equating them and yet the same example of murder/attempted murder has been used by various posters to drive home their perceived severity of WotC's actions... uhm...ok.

Yes, nobody is equating them. No, nobody is claiming that their actions are of the same severity.

No it isn't... the matter has been settled

So, there was a court case I missed? It must have been a quick one! When and where?

(and if it hasn't WotC has the same power to do the same thing they could have chosen to do before Christmas

They probably lack the power to deauthorise the OGL. They have proven that they the ability to scare people by pretending to have that power, a pretense that they maintain even now.

 

[Umbran]

As for moving 5e to CC... as I said, they were losing customers. It wasn't generosity or decency or even intelligence; it was desperation.

You really should avoid ascribing emotions to people you've never even met, much less spoken to about the thing.

Also, you're a gamer. As if you've never had characters in a desperate situation, but actually used your head and made a smart move? And, do you wish to assert that people can only have one motivation/goal for an action at a time? Because I'm pretty sure that one won't hold up under scrutiny.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Tone can be difficult convey in text, so I will assume (once) that the belittling and high-handedness was accidental and you are actually interested in the answer (no complicated terms necessary, unless you count "deauthorise" and "assurances"):

They could have come out with a statement to the effect that they were wrong to assert that they could deauthorise the OGL 1.0a, and that they stood by their earlier assurances that it was for ever. In terms of practical difference, it would have made a little but not a lot ("cannot unring a bell", etc), but it could reasonably be described as "backing down completely". Unlike what they actually did, which is way short of that.

From the FAQ regarding the CC-

How is this different from the OGL? The OGL places more requirements on creators and contains more restrictions on what they are permitted to do. Creative Commons provides a more modern license, more freedom for creators, and more certainty that the content released under the license will remain available under those terms forever. We put the SRD 5.1 under Creative Commons license in January 2023 so that creators have certainty that Wizards can never revoke or deauthorize SRD 5.1 content.

That's what they did. I understand you might not have read this, or understand why they did what they did for legal reasons, but there was a reason for all of this. The OGL (which is more than 20 years old) was a poorly written document. No matter what they say extrinsically, it doesn't matter. So yes, they backed down as completely as they could.

So, care to explain this to me again?


ETA- By the way, if you want to be mad, go ahead. But don't try to say that they didn't back down. Or that there was some kind of magic word incantation that they were missing. Take the W. If you want to channel that anger, I find it helpful to do positive things in the community that you are located and can see the difference; there are probably a ton (either metric or imperial) of non-profit organizations that could use board members, volunteers, or assistance in your community.

 

[Faolyn]

How about an actual?

A company proposes a plan.

People don't like it.

The company says, "Okay, how about this instead?"

People say they don't like it.

The company says, "Okay, how about we not do the original plan, and just to make sure you know that you were heard, we also give you something extra?"

So... they twice try to put forth a plan that would cause a great deal of harm to a lot of third party creators out there and had to be forced to change their mind or lose tons of money... and that's OK with you?

See, I don't get that. They weren't just proposing a change that would annoy people. They weren't just trying to make unpopular changes to their game. They were proposing a change that would cause lots of creators to lose money and VTTs to shut down. They were threatening actual, financial harm to people. Even if it would only harm a relatively small handful of people, it was still harmful both to those people and to everyone who bought their products, and we had no guarantee that they wouldn't eventually get even greedier.

This isn't about feeling a need to hate or hold a grudge, like you seem to think. This is legitimately wondering why we're supposed to go back to buying their books like nothing happened. To me, it sounds like you want us to be thankful they didn't actually go through with their plan to hurt people. And that's just... disturbing.

 

[glass]

So, care to explain this to me again?

No. I said "once" and I meant it. But I will explain for the benefit of anyone else trying to follow our disagreement: The text Snarf Zagyg quotes in the post (EDIT: almost) immediately above mine is about the CC, and has nothing whatsoever to do with OGL 1.0a. I was talking about the latter.

A few weeks ago they suddenly started claiming that they could "deauthorise" the OGL 1.0a, and that is the claim they have not backed down on. All they have said is that they "are not", which far from admitting they do not have the power implicitly affirms that the do.

 

[Dreamscape]

From the FAQ regarding the CC-

How is this different from the OGL? The OGL places more requirements on creators and contains more restrictions on what they are permitted to do. Creative Commons provides a more modern license, more freedom for creators, and more certainty that the content released under the license will remain available under those terms forever. We put the SRD 5.1 under Creative Commons license in January 2023 so that creators have certainty that Wizards can never revoke or deauthorize SRD 5.1 content.

Highlighting the relevant portions:

More certainty under CC, therefore less certainty that WotC won't pull the same stunt again with the OGL at some point in the future. No other way to read that, really.

The SRD 5.1 CC content is a tiny subset of the SRDs released for D&D 3.0 and 3.5, D20 Modern, and all the OGC produced over the last 23 years. That point has been brought up repeatedly every few pages in all these threads, so it's quite surprising that not everyone is aware of it by now.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So... they twice try to put forth a plan that would cause a great deal of harm to a lot of third party creators out there and had to be forced to change their mind or lose tons of money... and that's OK with you?

Define "hurt."

Do we need to talk about the employment practices of Amazon?
Shall we discuss the environmental practices of ExxonMobil? No? How about the ways in which the rare earths got into your cell phone?
Okay. How about the anti-competitive practices of WalMart? Facebook? Google?
Maybe we engage in some round-robin discussion about actual harms done by corporate entities, from the big ones to the small ones?

So you ask if this is okay with me. And my answer is this- yeah, actually. I totally understood why they did what they did, and I also am glad that they have backed down.

See, I don't get that. They weren't just proposing a change that would annoy people. They weren't just trying to make unpopular changes to their game. They were proposing a change that would cause lots of creators to lose money and VTTs to shut down. They were threatening actual, financial harm to people. Even if it would only harm a relatively small handful of people, it was still harmful both to those people and to everyone who bought their products, and we had no guarantee that they wouldn't eventually get even greedier.

How do you actually know that? We had a lot of pushback, and things have changed, but my goodness ... if people cares 1% as much about the actual harm being done as they do about this, then the world might be a better place, right?

Seriously ... no actual harm happened. None.

This isn't about feeling a need to hate or hold a grudge, like you seem to think. This is legitimately wondering why we're supposed to go back to buying their books like nothing happened. To me, it sounds like you want us to be thankful they didn't actually go through with their plan to hurt people. And that's just... disturbing.

No, what is disturbing is people comparing this to murder, like you. Buy whatever you want, from whatever company you want. But I think individuals comparing this to murder or spousal abuse have either live a very charmed life or need to get a serious grip on their analogies, because that's offensive. Sorry ... disturbing.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Highlighting the relevant portions:

More certainty under CC, therefore less certainty that WotC won't pull the same stunt again with the OGL at some point in the future. No other way to read that, really.

The SRD 5.1 CC content is a tiny subset of the SRDs released for D&D 3.0 and 3.5, D20 Modern, and all the OGC produced over the last 23 years. That point has been brought up repeatedly every few pages in all these threads, so it's quite surprising that not everyone is aware of it by now.

Yeah, because (one more time) legally they can't make that guarantee.

It's unclear why people are so insistent that they be lied to, given that if they were lied to, they would (hopefully) be up in arms stating that WoTC is lying to them.

So instead of lie to you, WoTC stopped the plan they were going to do AND released the 5.1 SRD under the CC BY. In other words, they restored the status quo to before their leaked plan, and released the 5.1 SRD under an even more open license.

You want them to lie to you instead? Is that what you're requesting?

 

[Faolyn]

You really should avoid ascribing emotions to people you've never even met, much less spoken to about the thing.

By that logic, you should avoid saying that they had any emotions at all here, including a desire to show generosity or decency.

Here's the facts:

They proposed a plan. People very vocally did not like it. People very vocally talked about boycotting WotC. The story was picked up by major news sources. Several major companies banded together to create a brand new license. Several websites put together lists of game suggestions for people who were ditching D&D. Several non-WotC companies sold out of books. Many, many people cancelled their DDB subscriptions. If I'm understanding it correctly, their stocks went down quite considerably in January and at least some of that was because of this kurfluffle. When WotC proposed a revised plan, people still very vocally did not like it, both because it contained a false-sounding non-apology and because it failed to actually address the problems people were having with the plan. WotC then put out a poll and ended the poll several days early when they were getting results that said 62% of people would be satisfied with putting the game under the Creative Commons, 89% said they weren't satisfied with deauthorizing 1.a and 88% wouldn't want to publish under 1.2.

So what would you call all that?

Also, you're a gamer. As if you've never had characters in a desperate situation, but actually used your head and made a smart move? And, do you wish to assert that people can only have one motivation/goal for an action at a time? Because I'm pretty sure that one won't hold up under scrutiny.

OK, you're comparing the actions of fictional characters in a game, with fictional results, where the worst thing that could really happen is that I lose one of my dice under the sofa because I tossed it a bit too hard, to the actions of a real company whose actions could have a real negative effect on real people.

Seriously?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Define "hurt."

Do we need to talk about the employment practices of Amazon?
Shall we discuss the environmental practices of ExxonMobil? No? How about the ways in which the rare earths got into your cell phone?
Okay. How about the anti-competitive practices of WalMart? Facebook? Google?
Maybe we engage in some round-robin discussion about actual harms done by corporate entities, from the big ones to the small ones?

So you ask if this is okay with me. And my answer is this- yeah, actually. I totally understood why they did what they did, and I also am glad that they have backed down.



How do you actually know that? We had a lot of pushback, and things have changed, but my goodness ... if people cares 1% as much about the actual harm being done as they do about this, then the world might be a better place, right?

Seriously ... no actual harm happened. None.



No, what is disturbing is people comparing this to murder, like you. Buy whatever you want, from whatever company you want. But I think individuals comparing this to murder or spousal abuse have either live a very charmed life or need to get a serious grip on their analogies, because that's offensive. Sorry ... disturbing.

So,  are you saying that we should be thankful that they didn't go through with their plan to hurt people? Is that the takeaway from your statements?

And since the OP hasn't answered me, what do  you think "getting on-board with WotC" actually means?