Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8909135" data-attributes="member: 8461">No worries, dude. It's a tense time for all of us, and there's a lot of information and new developments coming at us very fast, resulting in a lot of dialogue happening all at once. We're all pretty stressed out by it.With regard to the termination clause, I don't want to get too much deeper into the weeds regarding the specifics (save to note that WotC seems to be trying to grant themselves much broader latitude than what you mention), but rather I think there's a broader point to be taken into account, which is that any potential revision to the OGL shouldn't be looked at in terms of general practices with regard to drawing up contemporary contracts. Rather, such revisions (and the conversations surrounding them as such) are, I think, best viewed by taking the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a as the status quo.Open gaming, as a concept (i.e. as facilitated by the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a), has been a bedrock principle of the tabletop RPG community for over twenty years now. The OGL's terms to date have long since become the de facto against which any other tabletop RPG compatibility licenses are judged; rightly or wrongly, it has become the standard. To that end, saying that the OGL v1.2 is normal, or even generous, with regard to other licenses in general strikes me as wrongheaded. How something functions in some other context isn't helpful, because we're talking about this context.In that regard, the fact that the restrictions the OGL v1.2 wants to have are standard practice in most other contracts doesn't alter that they're a net loss compared to how things have been for a long time now. The OGL v1.2 is therefore something to be measured in terms of loss, rather than gain, at least based on the current draft. This is something which a lot of the people who seem satisfied with what WotC is doing don't seem to acknowledge, and it confuses me; we all had a reasonable expectation that the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a would be perpetual, because that's what we were told. How, then, is a less-open license acceptable?</blockquote>

Verification