NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 8897021" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I think the real question at this point is, would the terms I laid out in previous threads be enough to overcome the "sour taste" in developers' mouths, as quoted in the article?For brevity:1. Explicitly (in writing) disclaim any right to "de-authorize" the OGL, and explicitly say the OGL is irrevocable.2. Include actual open-license structures in any new license(s) produced (perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, share-alike, etc.)3. Explicit, direct, & specific apology from the important people in the company.Would that be enough to bring even some of the 3PP people back? Because if not, there is room to argue that WotC could view it as "one may as well hang for a sheep as a lamb." The whole issue where, when all crimes merit death, escalation carries no extra punishment but might let you succeed.I think I've made my strident opposition to WotC's position clear. I consider the above to be the absolute bare minimum necessary to resolve this problem. But I am at least somewhat sympathetic to the idea that...well, "forgiveness" or "rebuilding trust" or whatever one wishes to call it, must be possible in order for people to actually try to obtain it. If forgiveness(/etc.) is impossible and trust, once broken, can never be regained, may as well start fighting as dirty as you can, y'know? And I don't think that's something we want to encourage the holder of the D&D IP to do.</blockquote>

Verification