Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8896525" data-attributes="member: 6777331">I think a lot of that was interrelated - the document appeared, 20 years ago, to have no loophole they could use, and for 20 years they didn't.&nbsp; Trust in both the OGL and WotC was formed together, at least for me, and 20+ years of working with it left me very confident that it was solid ground to be on.&nbsp; That ground turned to mush for me over the past week, I'm still reeling somewhat from it, and I'm still having a bit of difficulty separating any possible loopholes in the OGL from possible future action by WotC in my head.&nbsp; &nbsp; The very idea of a challenge that could result in all the OGL 1.0a material no longer being OGL 1.0a material simply didn't exist in my head after all that time (although I do recall there was quite a bit of discussion about it at the time it was written, as I was something of a lurker on Ryan Dancey's OGL-L mailing list), outside of people occasionally doing stupid things that it didn't actually permit them to do.All of that said, with something the size of WotC it's still very much about being able to trust that you won't need to defend your legal rights against them, but that still stems from being confident enough that you've stayed within the licence terms and therefore are quite safe (as well as that 30-day remedy clause making it act as a safe harbor) so I really do find it very hard separating the two concepts.&nbsp; Plus it's now nearly 4am for me so my brain is barely working properly anyway... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Matt Thomason, post: 8896525, member: 6777331"] I think a lot of that was interrelated - the document appeared, 20 years ago, to have no loophole they could use, and for 20 years they didn't. Trust in both the OGL and WotC was formed together, at least for me, and 20+ years of working with it left me very confident that it was solid ground to be on. That ground turned to mush for me over the past week, I'm still reeling somewhat from it, and I'm still having a bit of difficulty separating any possible loopholes in the OGL from possible future action by WotC in my head. The very idea of a challenge that could result in all the OGL 1.0a material [I]no longer being[/I] OGL 1.0a material simply didn't exist in my head after all that time (although I do recall there was quite a bit of discussion about it at the time it was written, as I was something of a lurker on Ryan Dancey's OGL-L mailing list), outside of people occasionally doing stupid things that it didn't actually permit them to do. All of that said, with something the size of WotC it's still very much about being able to trust that you won't [I]need[/I] to defend your legal rights against them, but that [I]still[/I] stems from being confident enough that you've stayed within the licence terms and therefore are quite safe (as well as that 30-day remedy clause making it act as a safe harbor) so I really do find it very hard separating the two concepts. Plus it's now nearly 4am for me so my brain is barely working properly anyway... :D [/QUOTE]

Verification