I think I know how the morality clause acceptable(+)

[Cap'n Kobold]

The need for a morality clause would make more sense to me if WotC had more recognizable IP that could be exploited for, say, pornographic purposes. Like, I can get why a company like Disney would insist on a morality clause for anyone licensing their work. But WotC doesn't really have any recognizable IP that is available through the OGL to be exploited in this way, does it?

What I'm trying to say is, if someone uses the OGL to make a adults-only RPG, or one that is hateful in some way, I don't see it being attributed to WotC, either legally or in terms of public perception. But I'm no lawyer. Maybe this changes when the movie comes out, if it is a big hit?

Morality clause needs to be hacked completely.

You make the product,
people will either buy it or not buy it.

I certainly wont buy anything filled with racism, sexism and whatnot-isms.
And I'm sure 99% of "D&D" customers will not also.
And if you plan your business model with alienating 99% of possible customers; all I can say, good luck to you. You'll definitely need it.

And you were wrong then too. Because the OGL doesn’t allow you to use any brand identity. You can’t put “Dungeons & Dragons” on the cover, you can’t use their imagery etc. So no, you are entirely incorrect. There was no ability to use their brand, that’s why no product released under the OGL has blown back on Hasbro, that’s why no product released under the OGL can blow back on Hasbro.

Publishing a work under the OGL permits you to use the Creator Content Badge. These display the iconic WotC D&D ampersand symbol. It would be entirely possible for a work covered by the OGL to be associated with Hasbro by the public.
Indeed, since most people aren't going to have an in depth knowledge of the OGL they may well believe that any work displaying that badge, no matter how unpleasant, is endorsed by Hasbro.

Off the top of my head, I can't see a good resolution. If this license is to be truly irrevocable, then finding a stable and reliable 3rd party who could be trusted probably isn't going to happen.
At the end of the day, this is WotC's ball that they are offering to share with us. We either let them decide who they want to share with, or we tell them that they have to give their ball to F.A.T.A.L. D&D if they want it, and see how that demand is received.

 

[Alzrius]

people speed through parking lots isnt a good reason to never have a speed bump

I think a more apt analogy, here, would be that WotC is adding a speed bump to the parking lot in response to someone crashing their car into the building.

(To be absolutely clear, "someone crashing their car into the building" is referring to nuTSR and their bigoted Star Frontiers game.)

 

[Grantypants]

I'm not concerned about the morality clause at all. Let's say they decide my conduct is hateful. That would only keep me from using the content in the 5.1 SRD that has not been released under Creative Commons.

 

[Grantypants]

Enough of the SRD has been released under CC-BY that someone will make a 5e compatible clone. Whether that's Kobold Press's Black Flag or whoever else, someone will make a usable system and I can release whatever I want through that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think a more apt analogy, here, would be that WotC is adding a speed bump to the parking lot in response to someone crashing their car into the building.

okay... lets run with that.

Speed bumps are a mental and physical deterant (not even close to 100% effective) to speeding. Putting them in the parking lot WILL have an effect to slow SOME cars. It may or may not have stopped that car from hitting the building... but people are argueing that since we didn't have speed bumps for the last 25 years there is no value to adding them now.

(To be absolutely clear, "someone crashing their car into the building" is referring to nuTSR and their bigoted Star Frontiers game.)

yes, and I would NOT be suprised if that opened there eyes to the damage that could be done...

like I could anytime I cook burn myself, I would have no one to blame but my own clutzy self. (aka they can publish problematic things and get called out for it)
The idea that someone else could walk in to the kitchen and burn me is not anywhere NEAR the same level of issue (if they do it by mistake or malace) because I can't control it... so putting a limit on people useing the fire in teh kitchen makes sense, even if I have yet to be burned.

 

[Alzrius]

okay... lets run with that.

Speed bumps are a mental and physical deterant (not even close to 100% effective) to speeding. Putting them in the parking lot WILL have an effect to slow SOME cars. It may or may not have stopped that car from hitting the building...

I suppose I should have put this in the original analogy (though that would have made it rather bloated), but the "parking lot" is use of the OGL v1.0a. By extension, the car that crashed into the building came from the street in front of the building (i.e. nuTSR didn't use the OGL; so they never entered the metaphorical parking lot to begin with, and hence a speed bump would never have deterred them).

All of which is to say, this "solution" wouldn't have stopped the problem which apparently prompted it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I suppose I should have put this in the original analogy (though that would have made it rather bloated), but the "parking lot" is use of the OGL v1.0a. By extension, the car that crashed into the building came from the street in front of the building (i.e. nuTSR didn't use the OGL; so they never entered the metaphorical parking lot to begin with, and hence a speed bump would never have deterred them).

All of which is to say, this "solution" wouldn't have stopped the problem which apparently prompted it.

and I addressed that. I addressed directly let me quote myself.

It may or may not have stopped that car from hitting the building... but people are argueing that since we didn't have speed bumps for the last 25 years there is no value to adding them now..

weather the new speed bumps would have stopped the car isn't as important as 'will the speed bumps do anything'.

If shoprite put in speedbumps with no cause, just woke up and said "Lets add speedbumps just in case" or Shoprite just got robbed by a hacker and said "lets add speedbumps" doesn't matter... the speed bumps are a good idea or a bad idea.

My fiancé does this all the time. SOmthing odd happens and makes her decide to change something. I couldn't draw a cause and effect that made ANY sense to save my life. So I don't evaluate WHY she is doing it... but what she is doing.

 

[Alzrius]

and I addressed that. I addressed directly let me quote myself.

weather the new speed bumps would have stopped the car isn't as important as 'will the speed bumps do anything'.

Given that the clause in question has the potential to cause harm to publishers who haven't done anything wrong, perhaps speed bumps are the wrong metaphor, then. Something more like those spikes that destroy your tires when you drive over them.

 

[MoonSong]

Given that the clause in question has the potential to cause harm to publishers who haven't done anything wrong, perhaps speed bumps are the wrong metaphor, then. Something more like those spikes that destroy your tires when you drive over them.

Speed bumps are the right metaphor. They cause more wear and tear on the car, more gas consumption and more accidents. Also, they seem harmless, and for a lot of people they are, but you don't want to be the one who gets into an accident with one. Particularly if they are of shody construction and design.

Edit: And it seems they also do more harm than good with lots of unintended negative consequences. Just like this clause.

 

[bloodtide]

The only winning move is not to play.

Really, that have to just dump the whole morality clause. There is just no way to do it.

Hasbro won't like it, but they just have to accept it. Would not a TON of legalese that says "Hasbro does not approve of everything in every book, but we respect the viewpoints of every creator. We would ask for the public to vote with thier pocket books if they find content they don't like".

This sort of thing works right? "The comments made here do not represent the views of Company XYZ" works just fine. Right?