Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8891504" data-attributes="member: 18">I think that's a completely correct understanding.Everything the OA people have said basically seems to be "We think it's totally cool and rad for a corporation to do this!".Which has nothing to do with the law. And the attacks on the journalist are beyond the pale, especially as you say, as many other lawyers (some probably better-qualified in this field than the OA guys - only one of whom is even a lawyer) agree with the conclusions drawn so far. It's just really out-of-line stuff.About deauthorization? Nope. That's completely out of the blue.That the OGL was a trap? Yes, but this stopped being a common opinion by like 2003/4, and it wasn't based on the legalities, just the idea that making stuff for WotC's D&D was a mistake, long-term.That WotC didn't like the OGL? Sure. But what confused the issue there is that WotC intentionally brought back the OGL for 5E. Given that the licence had stood the test of time and WotC were themselves encouraging it, I don't think anyone was particularly concerned.What people expected with 1D&D was GSL 2.0. But we've got is much more extreme than the GSL, especially if it's intended, as WotC have tried to suggest, deauthorize the 1.0a licence for everyone all the time.</blockquote>