OGL Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse

dave2008

Legend
If we gave WotC the benefit of the doubt, they would have railroaded us to hell already. The only reason they have backed off in any way (and none on what actually matters) is because there was a united response of "No." when they got caught and called out for it.
I don't necessarily disagree, but that is a different thing IMO. I don't need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I will judge them on the final product. Until then, I will push them to make the best product possible.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Scribe

Legend
I don't necessarily disagree, but that is a different thing IMO. I don't need to give them the benefit of the doubt. I will judge them on the final product. Until then, I will push them to make the best product possible.

By the time there is a final, its too late. They are not worthy of trust. I mean I get it, we are on polar opposites of the 'glass is half X' question, but any kind of 'lets see what we get' is too late I'm afraid.
 

dave2008

Legend
By the time there is a final, its too late. They are not worthy of trust. I mean I get it, we are on polar opposites of the 'glass is half X' question, but any kind of 'lets see what we get' is too late I'm afraid.
I specifically said (in the post you quoted): "...I will push them to make the best product possible." How do you interpret that as "lets see what we get?"
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
So this part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this (claiming that this is a "self-destruct" clause buried in there).
So this is part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this, where what is clearly written in the OGL 1.2 is claimed not to be. I won't ascribe motives to your action, like you said I thought Hasbro was evil or that I want to burn things to the ground.

Let's look at 9(d), bolding mine:
Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.

If you would like to claim this isn't there, then you are mistaken. If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety", then you are also wrong.

So please stop trying to put words in my mouth that I think they are evil or claiming something isn't there. Because you are incorrect in both assumptions. I know I don't consider them evil, and it's demonstratable that there is a clause that could self destruct it all in the current OGL.

I don't really care who at Wizards of the Coast put it there, just that it has been approved to be there. And that it differs from the boilerplate I've seen time and time again about severability to stand out as a conscious choice. I'm also not saying they are planning to use it. But when he brought up the morality clause, it

Yes, we can ask to have it removed. I have, in polite tones, in the survey. Because I don't think Hasbro is "evil". I do think that new senior management, likely under pressure from outside investors and/or the parent company, have made regretable descisions that show that the amount of trust we can and should have in not just a company but all future management of said company (and in this case it's any company) needs to be moderated. But I don't think they are evil, and am actively trying to work with them to bring them back in alignment with the fanbase.

So put away your "pitchforks and torches" comments and stop trying to demonize me to win a discussion. Instead engage what was said. They at this point have only included the 5e SRD in their comments about OGL, not the 3ed or 3.5 SRDs, and there is language in the OGL which could be used to self-destruct the same thing. Both of these are true, and that's what I said.

(The rest of your comment below.)
Or comments like the one I saw recently, wherein someone claimed that amending the morality clause to allow an appeal to a neutral third party wouldn't be good enough because .... Hasbro would just bribe anyone to get what they want.

That's not a "self-destruct" clause. Look, if you believe that Hasbro is just evil, then why bother commenting? They're just evil, everything they do is evil, and you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department. ;)

Instead, you have to look at things rationally. They had to have their legal to a complete about-face and draft a new legal document in a short period of time. Which they did. They are asking for feedback to it.

Why is that version of the severance clause in there? Because this was drafted by Hasbro's attorneys. Not you. When your own attorney drafts documents, they usually do so ... to protect you, and with the assumption that you will do the right thing. So from their point of view, they would have a concern that one of the many people screaming to "Burn it all down," would challenge one of the provisions that was important to Hasbro (say, the morality portion that protects the brand), get it invalidated, and then continue on. That's probably why it is there.

Now we have the chance for feedback. If this is actually a concern, just suggest they replace it with the CC BY-SA severance provision-
To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.


This would demand reformation first, then severance, and finally makes explicit that nothing is waived or consented to by the licensor. Again, this would be constructive feedback.

But if people are just getting out torches and pitchforks because Hasbro* is incurably evil, then there's not much point in any of these conversations, right?


*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE!
 



So this part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this (claiming that this is a "self-destruct" clause buried in there). Or comments like the one I saw recently, wherein someone claimed that amending the morality clause to allow an appeal to a neutral third party wouldn't be good enough because .... Hasbro would just bribe anyone to get what they want.

That's not a "self-destruct" clause. Look, if you believe that Hasbro is just evil, then why bother commenting? They're just evil, everything they do is evil, and you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department. ;)

Instead, you have to look at things rationally. They had to have their legal to a complete about-face and draft a new legal document in a short period of time. Which they did. They are asking for feedback to it.

Why is that version of the severance clause in there? Because this was drafted by Hasbro's attorneys. Not you. When your own attorney drafts documents, they usually do so ... to protect you, and with the assumption that you will do the right thing. So from their point of view, they would have a concern that one of the many people screaming to "Burn it all down," would challenge one of the provisions that was important to Hasbro (say, the morality portion that protects the brand), get it invalidated, and then continue on. That's probably why it is there.

Now we have the chance for feedback. If this is actually a concern, just suggest they replace it with the CC BY-SA severance provision-
To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.


This would demand reformation first, then severance, and finally makes explicit that nothing is waived or consented to by the licensor. Again, this would be constructive feedback.

But if people are just getting out torches and pitchforks because Hasbro* is incurably evil, then there's not much point in any of these conversations, right?


*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE!

I feel like acting like there isn't a rhyme or reason to what's going on, that this is all innocuous really has to ignore a lot of WotC's actions up until now. Like, their lawsuits against Weis/Hickman regarding their Dragonlance book, as well as their lawsuit against GF9, along with incredibly aggressive new "VTT Policy" makes it pretty easy to draw conclusions about their intentions. It seems less rational to ignore such actions when judging their intentions and instead frame them more as "mistakes" in need of feedback.

I wonder where that mindset was when you made a giant post about a conspiracy theory that Paizo was behind the OGL leaks. :unsure:
 

dave2008

Legend
this sums it up nicely, but it’s not like you have more proof of your viewpoint. If anything it is contradicted by basically all of WotC’s actions concerning the OGL in the last two months or so, which incidentally is why I have a different one ;)
Actually, one could argue that the actual first public release (OGL 1.2) is proof that they are willing to listen and make changes.
 


dave2008

Legend
I feel like acting like there isn't a rhyme or reason to what's going on, that this is all innocuous really has to ignore a lot of WotC's actions up until now. Like, their lawsuits against Weis/Hickman regarding their Dragonlance book, as well as their lawsuit against GF9, along with incredibly aggressive new "VTT Policy" makes it pretty easy to draw conclusions about their intentions. It seems less rational to ignore such actions when judging their intentions and instead frame them more as "mistakes" in need of feedback.
IDK, it seems pretty rational that a lawyer would see standard contract language and understand why it is there. And as far as I can remember Snarf never said they were "mistakes." The only mistake is assuming nefarious intent because standard contract language is in there (some of which also appears in the CC and GPL).
 

dave2008

Legend
I mean, given their proposed VTT policy, it'd probably be easier to argue that a lot of that is smokescreen while the most deleterious stuff is still in there.
I will admit that I only recently started looking into what is going on there (VTT policy) and I can see your point. It seems pretty bad, but I still haven't gone in depth into it. IIRC the first survey didn't have many questions about the VTT policy (I only remember one), so I didn't pay much attention to it. I hope it is featured more in a future survey, because it has a lot of issues IMO.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
So this is part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this, where what is clearly written in the OGL 1.2 is claimed not to be. I won't ascribe motives to your action, like you said I thought Hasbro was evil or that I want to burn things to the ground.

Gee, it's almost like you are trying to lecture me on something I have never read and never have experienced.

Wait ... oh ... you mean I've actually written entire posts and threads on the subject? On this specific clause even????

This should be interesting.

Let's look at 9(d), bolding mine:
Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.

If you would like to claim this isn't there, then you are mistaken. If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety", then you are also wrong.

See, here's the thing. You obviously don't understand what you just read. Here- allow me to show you.

This what you wrote-
If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety",

This is the problem. You're ignoring the actual language that you just quoted. And, of course, the entire history of construing a severanace clause. This is the part that you didn't bold-

If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason.

So what does this mean? It means that you just transformed the word "held" to be "held by Wizards," when that is not the actual meaning. The actual meaning of held in that clause is held by a court.

So, yeah, the rest of the my comment stands. I find that this is to be disingenuous, and I find this type of misleading rhetoric to be harmful to actual discussion.

Thanks!
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
I feel like acting like there isn't a rhyme or reason to what's going on, that this is all innocuous really has to ignore a lot of WotC's actions up until now. Like, their lawsuits against Weis/Hickman regarding their Dragonlance book, as well as their lawsuit against GF9, along with incredibly aggressive new "VTT Policy" makes it pretty easy to draw conclusions about their intentions. It seems less rational to ignore such actions when judging their intentions and instead frame them more as "mistakes" in need of feedback.

I wonder where that mindset was when you made a giant post about a conspiracy theory that Paizo was behind the OGL leaks. :unsure:

Well, to start with that's not what I did.

But given your take, I don't think further conversation will help.
 

IDK, it seems pretty rational the a lawyer would see standard contract language and understand why they are there. And as far as I can remember Snarf never said they were "mistakes." The only mistake is assuming nefarious intent because standard contract language is in there (some of which also appears in the CC and GPL).

I mean, in Snarf's own thread he points out that the morality clause is not standard for this sort of thing. We assume nefarious intent because they've been taking nefarious actions and they add things in that seem to allow them to do what we asked them to change.

I will admit that I only recently started looking into what is going on there (VTT policy) and I can see your point. It seems pretty bad, but I still haven't gone in depth into it. IIRC the first survey didn't have many questions about the VTT policy (I only remember one), so I didn't pay much attention to it. I hope it is featured more in a future survey, because it has a lot of issues IMO.

Again, it's hard to read this policy and not view it through the lens of their previous actions and even their newest policies. I'm not sure we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it should be on them to try and reestablish trust instead of just "get feedback".
 

Haplo781

Legend
yeah, only thing this will fix that they put new OGL with 3.0, 3.5, 4E, 5E, 5.5E(1D&D) that is stated to be irrevocable and in perpetuity without any moral clauses.
Would likely be a CC license at this point but yeah.

Honestly the best case scenario that isn't pie in the sky is all the mechanics under CC-BY, with a big fat "irrevocable and perpetual", IP under a new OGL without any traps or poison pills, and a new System Trademark License or equivalent where they put the new Creator Logos, and that's where they can put their dumb morality clause. And then the top tier where they put the registered trademarks and campaign settings where they get royalties, which would be the equivalent of DM's Guild.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Gee, it's almost like you are trying to lecture me on something I have never read and never have experienced.

Wait ... oh ... you mean I've actually written entire posts and threads on the subject? On this specific clause even????

This should be interesting.



See, here's the thing. You obviously don't understand what you just read. Here- allow me to show you.

This what you wrote-
If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety",

This is the problem. You're ignoring the actual language that you just quoted. And, of course, the entire history of construing a severanace clause. This is the part that you didn't bold-

If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason.

So what does this mean? It means that you just transformed the word "held" to be "held by Wizards," when that is not the actual meaning. The actual meaning of held in that clause is held by a court.

So, yeah, the rest of the my comment stands. I find that this is to be disingenuous, and I find this type of misleading rhetoric to be harmful to actual discussion.

Thanks!
Great, you jump by all of the parts where you were a bad actor trying to ascribe my actions to thinking Hasbro is evil, and then you try to dismiss what I am saying by making an assumption is only true if I did think Hasbro was evil. Yes, I know that it is any part found unenforceable in a court of law, and never implies otherwise.

BTW, claiming you are right because you've written about it before is just a repackaging of the appeal to authority, a well known logical fallacy.
 

dave2008

Legend
I mean, in Snarf's own thread he points out that the morality clause is not standard for this sort of thing. We assume nefarious intent because they've been taking nefarious actions and they add things in that seem to allow them to do what we asked them to change.
In this case I was specifically talking about boiler plate language.
Again, it's hard to read this policy and not view it through the lens of their previous actions and even their newest policies. I'm not sure we should be giving them the benefit of the doubt. Instead, it should be on them to try and reestablish trust instead of just "get feedback".
Like I said, repeatedly, I do not give them the benefit of the doubt. However, nor do I assume nefarious intent. Heck, I don't try to assume anything.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
Yes, I know that it is any part found unenforceable in a court of law, and never implies otherwise.
Wait, maybe you didn't intend to, but you definitely implied that here:

"If you would like to claim that it is not possible for Wizards, or some future management that holds this, to execute the "declare the entire license void [...] in its entirety", then you are also wrong."
 

Dustin_00

Explorer
"Perhaps bordering on clickbaity." You think? I know YouTubers do this to attract clicks, but I'm one of those folks who is actively deterred.
It totally sounds clickbaity -- but could be an underestimate.

If Facebook suddenly revoked its open license for React JavaScript, half the internet would go dark. If Node JavaScript got revoked, the other half would go dark. It's almost impossible to find a front-end web dev position that does not use one of those. Often you'll find half of a web site using one and half using the other.

2021 saw e-commerce reach $5.2 trillion.

It would take years to replace the library and maybe even years just to rip out the old library and get websites back up in a downgraded state.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Great, you jump by all of the parts where you were a bad actor trying to ascribe my actions to thinking Hasbro is evil, and then you try to dismiss what I am saying by making an assumption is only true if I did think Hasbro was evil. Yes, I know that it is any part found unenforceable in a court of law, and never implies otherwise.

Well, gee, if you knew it, why didn't you write it?

Instead, you used the word to imply that Wizards is the one that can unilaterally "hold" that it is invalid, and (in addition) you've been repeatedly banging this drum. If you didn't mean to, then maybe stop? And, for that matter, stop arguing with me to tell me that I'm correct. I already know that I'm correct on this.

I would also point out that my first response explained this, and provided alternate language, but instead of actually, you know, responding to what I wrote you continue to double down on this whole thing. Which is... a choice.

BTW, claiming you are right because you've written about it before is just a repackaging of the appeal to authority, a well known logical fallacy.

I didn't claim that. My words speak for themselves- I think anyone can judge my level of familiarity with legal concepts and with what is going on by seeing what I've written.

I just found it highly amusing that you thought it prudent to lecture me on not just severance clauses in general, but this one in particular. Amusing, that's the word for it, right?

But hey- argumentum ad verecunidiam. Given my well-known love for people that start trying to use logical fallacies, I am sure this will end well!

Or, at least ... you know, be amusing.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top