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="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8888393" data-attributes="member: 7039850">(IANAL!) The full arguments for the alternative interpretations are earlier this thread. However there are no analysis of how in particular the most publicized leak (Gizmodo) was extremely misleading: "This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement." cursive was not present in the Gizmodo leak. I first saw a leak with the full paragraph, hence immediately associating this statement with the update statement in 1.0a section 9. Further already on the D&D beyond piece before that people was wondering what would prevent people to simply publish 1.1 content under 1.0a, and I had that conversation fresh in memory. Hence I immediately recognized this as an attempt to attempt that. I am quite convinced that the entire intent of this formulation was to have a legal backing of saying no to anyone trying to publish oneD&D 1.1 content under a 1.0a license.As for the other statement regarding "But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial.". This was not part of the first leak I saw, but it was in the Gizmodo leak. When paired with the "no longer authorized" excerpt, that make it seem like these two might be related, and it appear that coupeling very quickly make people think that they want to get rid of 1.0a, as that is the only way one can seem to lead to the other, and the brain is amazing at finding potential causality relations. However what the Gizmodo leak did not clarify was that this was not part of the legal text, but rather a part of an explaining FAQ; and when looking closer at the full document it appear much more likely it simply is a way of making the following formulation from the legalese more prominent: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement". If paired like this, I guess the connection seem at least quite plausible? But this formulation was not present in any leaks before the full leak, and hence the only "tool" the mind had to try to make sense of the faq "claim" was the other formulations in the leak, of witch the "authorized" was a clear candidate.In other words those two really viral formulations leaked out of context by Gizmodo make it seem pretty "obvious" that wizards want to get rid of 1.0a. If you have read the full document without being presented the potential of 1.0a being revoked, and with the weird use of authorized 1.0a in section 9 fresh in mind I really think quite few would have reached the conclusion that this document provide any evidence wizards want to get rid of 1.0a as a valid agreement framework. Rather there are several evidences they want to keep and build on the existing 1.0a material - most obviously the fact that they insist on calling this an "update" to 1.0a (which is what allow for the use of OGC contributed by third parties), but also as recently discovered the at first glance very weird long definition of "Unlicensed Content", that turn out to basically include exactly everything not distributable according to 1.0a, with the exception of PI in the 5.1 SRD.Don't get me wrong. There are definitely big bad things about this lisence, like how wizard for all practical purposes try to steal and seal all 1.0a OGC content so that it can only be used with 6ed on their platform (and they can sell any OGC there anyone have created without any attribution). And the license seem to be crafted specifically for making sure noone but them is going to gain any real value from the arrangement. But saying that they try to Terminate/Revoke/Nullify 1.0a with this I believe is not the case.I have really tried the last week to raise awareness around these issues I am convinced being there, but it is really hard when everyone seem to believe that wizards want to kill 1.0a, in which case my concerns would indeed be unfounded.</blockquote>

Verification