Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8898487" data-attributes="member: 7039850">I listened to it and my main issue was that they presented 5.1 SRD as the only OGC. On their facebook I tried to point out this error, and they commented back the somewhat eye opening statement that it clearly isn't written as a open source license.I am saying eye opening, as I realised someone searching for the ogl and wizards could find the srd5.1-ogl document from wizards. If reading only that documentm and thinking that is the only document wizards is refering to, I can see how it is easy to miss the open source quality. Especially as the premable of the OGL in that document clearly limits the scope of certain more ambigous terms required for the open source mechanisms to function for that context.I hence think this was their major mistake. They likely only read the 5.1-OGL, and assumed this was the only affected licensed document. Or at the very least that as there are no forced mechanisms for declaring any non-derivative elements as OGC, noone in their right mind would give up their original commercial work to wizards under this license.If this had been the case, that this license was provided as is only in the ogl 5.1 format, and never used outside the type of scope OGL-1.1 allow I think their take seem perfectly reasonable. As a B2C commercial license of IP this is par for the course.As a legal loophole exploitation that allows for the wreckage of an entire commersial open source community this is horrible on a scale even the free software fundation should want to look into. Even if gpl is not prone to the same loophole, if the word gets spread, this could erode confidence in their open source platform as well.Hence I hope those talking to media now can be conscious to emphasize that ogl is not just the srd-ogl issued by wizards. When reading the mainstream media with this misconception in mind, I get the impression it might be a very common one.</blockquote>

Verification