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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cadence" data-source="post: 8888467" data-attributes="member: 6701124">I find it hard to believe that most people familiar with 1.0a, upon reading the full:"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. 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" wouldn't immediately jump to searching for it and (after swtiching to just 1.0 find:"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."and end up with the thoughts in the Gizmodo article.  And I'm guessing that the reason it was leaked to the places that got it is because someone with access to it jumped to exactly the conclusion.  If I thought there were many people conversant with 1.0a who hadn't been online for the past two weeks then we could make an experiment of it.And, I guess "You have not relied on anything that is not expressly a part of this agreement." does say you shouldn't trust their commentary on it either <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile    :-)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" />This strikes me as an absolutely bizarre train of thought.  But again, we don't have mind wipers to go see what we would have thought if presented things in other orders.</blockquote>

Verification