Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="masdog" data-source="post: 8899545" data-attributes="member: 7039919">I think that's a fair point.&nbsp; It would depend on the text of any future ORC license, though.&nbsp; And Paizo, or any publisher, would potentially have the right to republish material under a more restrictive license.I think a big part of the current issue is that WotC owns the current license, the core property that is licensed under it, and the only mechanism for updating the license.&nbsp; So if I had to guess, we're only in this situation because it suits their future business model and they think they can get away with it (or if they don't think this, they're trying to make people think they can).It would be different if, say, the Free Gaming Foundation (a fictional organization that I just made up...but think of it like the Free Software Foundation for TTRPGs) had stewardship over the ORC.&nbsp; If Paizo or any other publisher tried to pull this stunt, there would be a licensing body to assert the rights of the licensees and any sublicensed products.I'm very much in the same boat.&nbsp; I'm a big open-source advocate and user myself.&nbsp; I use a lot of Linux in my lab, Kubernetes, Postgres, and I dabble with a lot of open-source application packages.&nbsp; VS Code is my editor of choice.&nbsp; I also have a lot of licensed software on my laptops and desktops.&nbsp; My big sticking point is subscription services.&nbsp; They need to offer some value to me over non-subscription offerings.&nbsp; I actively avoid Adobe software because the subscription does not seem to be worth it compared to the alternatives (DxO/Affinity/DaVinci Resolve/FoxIt). Office365 Enterprise is actually worth the subscription fees because you get so much for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="masdog, post: 8899545, member: 7039919"] I think that's a fair point. It would depend on the text of any future ORC license, though. And Paizo, or any publisher, would potentially have the right to republish material under a more restrictive license. I think a big part of the current issue is that WotC owns the current license, the core property that is licensed under it, and the only mechanism for updating the license. So if I had to guess, we're only in this situation because it suits their future business model and they think they can get away with it (or if they don't think this, they're trying to make people think they can). It would be different if, say, the Free Gaming Foundation (a fictional organization that I just made up...but think of it like the Free Software Foundation for TTRPGs) had stewardship over the ORC. If Paizo or any other publisher tried to pull this stunt, there would be a licensing body to assert the rights of the licensees and any sublicensed products. I'm very much in the same boat. I'm a big open-source advocate and user myself. I use a lot of Linux in my lab, Kubernetes, Postgres, and I dabble with a lot of open-source application packages. VS Code is my editor of choice. I also have a lot of licensed software on my laptops and desktops. My big sticking point is subscription services. They need to offer some value to me over non-subscription offerings. I actively avoid Adobe software because the subscription does not seem to be worth it compared to the alternatives (DxO/Affinity/DaVinci Resolve/FoxIt). Office365 Enterprise is actually worth the subscription fees because you get so much for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification