Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8914310" data-attributes="member: 7023840">So I am not the King of Everyone (.... yet ....), but I view this pretty simply.Either you want Hasbro to provide an Open license, or that's not as big of a concern as just having something everyone agrees on.Because if you want it to be an open license, this it's just a category error to focus on individual provisions of the OGL 1.2. It's not an open license. But if you resigned to the fact that Hasbro is not going to provide an open license, then what you're trying to do is get the best possible deal you can. Which means something along the lines of the following:A. As much as possible in terms of &quot;mechanics&quot; and even some expression released under the CC.B. Giving feedback to revise the terms of the OGL 1.2 to ensure that it will be palatable. This would include, for example, reforming the severance clause to specify what terms are fundamental to the contract and, in addition, making it mandatory (not discretionary) as to what happens if those specific terms are found to be invalid et al. And having some mechanism in the morality clause to ensure that either there is some independent check, or that it has standards that can be adjudicated. That sort of stuff.But yeah, if you are demanding an open license, complaining about the provisions of OGL 1.2 is similar to someone who is allergic to dogs complaining that there is a particular dog that licks them when they choose to hang out, every day, for 12 hours at the dog park. It's not an open license.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8914310, member: 7023840"] So I am not the King of Everyone (.... yet ....), but I view this pretty simply. Either you want Hasbro to provide an [I]Open[/I] license, or that's not as big of a concern as just having something everyone agrees on. Because if you want it to be an [I]open[/I] license, this it's just a category error to focus on individual provisions of the OGL 1.2. It's not an open license. But if you resigned to the fact that Hasbro is not going to provide an open license, then what you're trying to do is get the best possible deal you can. Which means something along the lines of the following: A. As much as possible in terms of "mechanics" and even some expression released under the CC. B. Giving feedback to revise the terms of the OGL 1.2 to ensure that it will be palatable. This would include, for example, reforming the severance clause to specify what terms are fundamental to the contract and, in addition, making it mandatory (not discretionary) as to what happens if those specific terms are found to be invalid et al. And having some mechanism in the morality clause to ensure that either there is some independent check, or that it has standards that can be adjudicated. That sort of stuff. But yeah, if you are demanding an open license, complaining about the provisions of OGL 1.2 is similar to someone who is allergic to dogs complaining that there is a particular dog that licks them when they choose to hang out, every day, for 12 hours at the dog park. It's not an open license. [/QUOTE]

Verification