Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Corjay" data-source="post: 4407885" data-attributes="member: 52839">Well, you see, that's called &quot;information&quot;. I now have names associated with it. Now there's something to hang a hat on that didn't exist in this argument before you pointed out the names and clearly identified the situation. Even still, I seriously doubt it's about people pissing their name in the snow. It could very well be that the new people have a more objective view of it and have no vested interest in championing a dead horse. Thus, we're all correct, but for the motive of money, not territory marking.By the way, I was thinking post-layoffs, but I forgot that 3e was designed by the old TSR crew.Yes, Brown, companies do make the type of changes you're pointing out, but you'll find it happens because the one company that buys the other company already has a successful means of operation, and usually, the one who gets bought out is being bought out because their method of operation wasn't working, so it makes sense to change everything to the more fiscally effective method. But a license is a contract, not just a way of operating a business. Contracts are designed, not to reflect a business ideology, but to make the most money possible. The ideology only defines what type of contracts and how low the business is willing to stoop. This will affect contracts very little unless the business has a skewed ethic. The fact is, the OGL was indeed a poorly thought out document. The reason the GSL is being rejected, as I said, is because of subsection 6.1. I guarantee these businesses would swallow every drop of the GSL outside of 6.1 if 6.1 gave them more agreeable freedom. The OGL was so favored by those businesses, because it gave them license to hump WOTC. The GSL is hated because it not only doesn't let them hump WOTC anymore, but 6.1 humps them back.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Corjay, post: 4407885, member: 52839"] Well, you see, that's called "information". I now have names associated with it. Now there's something to hang a hat on that didn't exist in this argument before you pointed out the names and clearly identified the situation. Even still, I seriously doubt it's about people pissing their name in the snow. It could very well be that the new people have a more objective view of it and have no vested interest in championing a dead horse. Thus, we're all correct, but for the motive of money, not territory marking. By the way, I was thinking post-layoffs, but I forgot that 3e was designed by the old TSR crew. Yes, Brown, companies do make the type of changes you're pointing out, but you'll find it happens because the one company that buys the other company already has a successful means of operation, and usually, the one who gets bought out is being bought out because their method of operation wasn't working, so it makes sense to change everything to the more fiscally effective method. But a license is a contract, not just a way of operating a business. Contracts are designed, not to reflect a business ideology, but to make the most money possible. The ideology only defines what type of contracts and how low the business is willing to stoop. This will affect contracts very little unless the business has a skewed ethic. The fact is, the OGL was indeed a poorly thought out document. The reason the GSL is being rejected, as I said, is because of subsection 6.1. I guarantee these businesses would swallow every drop of the GSL outside of 6.1 if 6.1 gave them more agreeable freedom. The OGL was so favored by those businesses, because it gave them license to hump WOTC. The GSL is hated because it not only doesn't let them hump WOTC anymore, but 6.1 humps them back. [/QUOTE]

Verification