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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="phloog" data-source="post: 4204228" data-attributes="member: 59219">Actually, you're misinterpreting what I said.  I won't call you 'ridiculous' for it, but what I used were phrases like 'CAN easily lead to' and 'CAN drop in' (caps new).  I don't believe that I am 'accusing them of planning to drop in the poison pill' - - I believe I am correctly stating that it would be a trivially easy (from a legal standpoint) move to do this.  I understand that you feel the need to defend WOTC, but I'm simply not saying the things you are claiming about evil plots and schemes.What is frightening to me is that a company that already harmed a business I liked (Paizo) is producing a license that can be easily revoked.  But if history is to be ignored to support your argument then I guess that's about it.  They didn't do that to Paizo because they are EEEvil - they did it because it was in line with what they wanted as a business - - I'm merely suggesting that if it turns out that adjusting the GSL ends up being something their business wants, they won't hesitate to do it, and in fact the change from open to this model just makes that easier...thus the need for 3pps to still have a bit of worry.  With OGL, if they realize there's a need to change the business, they can't get rid of the Open license.3pps should fear not because WOTC is out to get them or because they are in league with the devil - which seems to be what you think I'm saying.3pps should fear because the instant a key person at WOTC believes it is worth a $ 1.38 more to kill the GSL than to leave it alone, they will kill it - it's just good business for them - - I just would worry if I was thinking of tying MY business to it.I guess we'll have to agree to disagree that there were internal discussion at WOTC - - I do think it's interesting that everyone who believes that there was an internal disagreement is 'ridiculous' and acting with no data, but people can make assumptions of great altruism and nobility on the part of a corporation with just as little actual data.  They had to have pow wows to align on interpretation, and someone told an outside party that it was company-level. If there truly was NOTHING that could cause it to be misconstrued that way, nothing at all, then maybe they need to fire the guy who is so incredibly moronic as to take a document that was absolutely crystal clear and botch it so badly, creating this PR nightmare - - either it was open to interpretation and not as clear as you say, or this person is unfit to handle information at a large company.</blockquote>

Verification