glass
(he, him)
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"):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.
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.
Yes, nobody is equating them. No, nobody is claiming that their actions are of the same severity.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.
So, there was a court case I missed? It must have been a quick one! When and where?No it isn't... the matter has been settled
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.(and if it hasn't WotC has the same power to do the same thing they could have chosen to do before Christmas
Last edited: