Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rpd9803" data-source="post: 8919652" data-attributes="member: 7040213">Yes it is certainly hell, but I understand (as a software developer, not a lawyer!) accepting this complexity to ensure a product you have produced is Open and STAYS Open.. If I have written a (say) GPL implementation of X, I DON'T want Google to be able to fork X, improve it, and license their improved derivative in a closed fashion.&nbsp; You can separate it by clearly indicating which portions of the text are SA and which are not.&nbsp; I understand that is an inconvienence for publishers, but this OGL-inspired split of game mecahnics and product identity seem to be fuzzy in a way that is not favorable to people looking to build upon open work.. this may be where my lack of legal understanding takes over, but to me splitting those two concepts seems somewhat subjective, and therefore worse for clear Open licensing than explicit licenses.I think the -SA part of the argument really pulled into focus the true issue at hand.. what was couched by the creator community as &quot;WOTC wants to take away your freedom!&quot; was actually &quot;WOTC Wants to take away third-party commercial partners abilities to use WOTC IP under the old terms and replace them with terms more favorable to WOTC&quot;Which like, that may be naughty word for those 3pp but I'm not going to cancel my DNDB subscription over it, just like I didn't sell my iPhone when Apple and Epic got into their spat.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rpd9803, post: 8919652, member: 7040213"] Yes it is certainly hell, but I understand (as a software developer, not a lawyer!) accepting this complexity to ensure a product you have produced is Open and STAYS Open.. If I have written a (say) GPL implementation of X, I DON'T want Google to be able to fork X, improve it, and license their improved derivative in a closed fashion. You can separate it by clearly indicating which portions of the text are SA and which are not. I understand that is an inconvienence for publishers, but this OGL-inspired split of game mecahnics and product identity seem to be fuzzy in a way that is not favorable to people looking to build upon open work.. this may be where my lack of legal understanding takes over, but to me splitting those two concepts seems somewhat subjective, and therefore worse for clear Open licensing than explicit licenses. I think the -SA part of the argument really pulled into focus the true issue at hand.. what was couched by the creator community as "WOTC wants to take away your freedom!" was actually "WOTC Wants to take away third-party commercial partners abilities to use WOTC IP under the old terms and replace them with terms more favorable to WOTC" Which like, that may be naughty word for those 3pp but I'm not going to cancel my DNDB subscription over it, just like I didn't sell my iPhone when Apple and Epic got into their spat. [/QUOTE]

Verification