Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fifth Element" data-source="post: 4842616" data-attributes="member: 48135">But the article claims this:Changing the d20 STL, which was not an open license, does not constitute WotC having "attempted to recall the open license." This implies they tried to revoke the OGL, which they didn't. Language in the OGL, which WotC wrote, prevents revocation of the license.The OGL and the d20 STL are (were) very different beasts. This section of the article reads as if the author does not know the difference between the OGL and the d20 STL, or at least glossing over the distinction. This is common enough, but certainly hurts your credibility when writing a "serious" article.As for the article as a whole, it's good for a laugh, if you enjoy that sort of thing. To me, it reads like a "Wot$ is EEEEEVIILLLLLL, 3PPs RULE!" post, but written in a pretentious manner. I find the conclusion in 4.4 that with 4E, WotC may have "created their own competition" rather strange. You could argue that was a result of the OGL in 3E, where publishers published self-contained RPGs using the license, and that's one reason they wanted to move away from that degree of openness. It's also strange considering the admission in the next paragraph that the 3PPs have a "tiny market".Edit: Wow, paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 read exactly like an anti-4E post on any message board, but once again couched in academic-sounding language (to a degree). It hits on many empty buzzwords.</blockquote>

Verification