Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 8900120" data-attributes="member: 6680772">I enjoyed their analysis, even when they got some things wrong, or I disagreed with their take. It was good to get an idea of how the situation might look to someone from the outside, without skin in the game.It was also brought home just what an out-of-context problem this is. It occurred to me when they said that they were sure that WotC did not intend for the OGL to allow Paizo to outsell them. When, of course, that was exactly the idea behind the OGL. But if you don't have that context, it just seems so bizarre. Open licenses are typically (almost entirely?) run by foundations and non-profits, not commercial corporations. Opening up one's primary product is something a start-up might do (in lieu of selling out, or going public), but a subsidiary of Hasbro? That's bonkers. Obviously, then, the thinking goes, WotC didn't intend to subsidize their competitors. Their intent was merely to provide for fan-made content and ancillary products by small companies.So, if you view it from that lens, then OA's take is understandable. OGL 1.1 is actually a tremendously generous document, by typical corporate standards (especially when comparing it, as they do, to Disney), WotC's play to get royalties from the larger houses seems an eminently reasonable one for a commercial company to make, and OGL 1.0 is by comparison far too loosey-goosey.Knowing the history (I go back to when TSR was T$R), the original intent of the OGL, and how it's affected the industry as a whole, of course I disagree. But I can see where they are coming from, as analysts looking at a hot news item, and critiquing the original article, with a bit of added research. I suspect that LegalEagle was planning a similar examination of the issue, until he talked to Matt Colville, and realized that diving into the history, culture, and interests of the various stakeholders would be getting too far into the weeds for his usual 20-30 min videos. So he eschewed the analysis of the OGL 1.1 in favor of the larger, more conceptual issue of games, copyright, and trademarks.Opening Arguments probably thought they could go where Devin couldn't, having over an hour to devote it in a podcast, and are now finding that not even 70 minutes was enough.</blockquote>

Verification