Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse

[mamba]

UGH! I am so tired of pointing out that it is a draft and that it needs to change before it is acceptable.

then do not say ‘that is what they are planning to do’ when it clearly is not… if they had planned for it to be irrevocable, then the draft already would contain that language

 

[ThorinTeague]

I'm not getting paid and I just wrote about it a different thread, but the differences should be obvious.

I understand that completely. I'll do my best to wrap my head around it.

 

[The Stray]

From the OGL 1.2 FAQ (last question), underlines for emphasis by me:

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.

Why are you trusting their word on this? WotC's word is worthless unless done in a way that is legally binding.

 

[Blue]

That is what they are planning to do (except the morality clause bit); however, it remains to be seen if the get there. Personally, I don't mind a morality clause that is more clearly defined by a 3rd party and with a means for review and appeal to a 3rd party.

That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.

 

[ThorinTeague]

This is very easy to say when one does not have skin in the game. It isn't your company that'll be sunk in legal limbo for years going bankrupt funding the court cases in which you have to prove that.

Well, that's not entirely true.... but nowhere near as much as any of the established publishers. All I've lost is time. All I have to do is remove the OGL and strip out any SRD language, and rewrite the whole system from the ground up; this whole debacle has set my project back at least a year. AAW, on the other hand, has skin in the game, projects in various stages in the pipeline (conception->writing->art->legal->design->preflight->press->proof->approve->mass press->ship--if it goes off without a hitch) and their recent public statement pretty much says it all. I (in my completely not at all authoritative opinion) expect to hear more companies taking that track in the coming weeks, as well as more companies joining the growing club of 3pp's corporately preparing for legal action (and probably kickstarters, humble bundles, etc. to help finance it as such).

But... you're right that my company will not sink into legal limbo and go bankrupt. Now if I had been just a little more focused, determined, less prone to waste my time on forums ...

Procrastination pays off once again!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Who says this won't happen again next year or in 5 years or 10 years?

Odd are pretty good that it will, given it last happened 14 years ago (or 8 if you count from the end of 4E), so yeah that's a pretty damn valid concern.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.

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!

 

[ThorinTeague]

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.

Unfortunately, if we've learned anything in the 21st century so far, it's that clearly nobody has to look at things rationally.

 

[dave2008]

then do not say ‘that is what they are planning to do’ when it clearly is not… if they had planned for it to be irrevocable, then the draft already would contain that language

I disagree. But I will conceded that I, nor you, truly know what they are planning.

What I see is a lot of standard contract language that lawyers think is not a big deal and wouldn't expect the reaction they are getting. I mean have you seen the thread on the boiler plate language? People are freaking out about terms that are already in the GPL and CC!

Do I want the standard contract language removed or revised? Yes! But it doesn't surprise me that the first public draft has language like this.

 

[dave2008]

That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.

By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:

1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.

They have specifically said both of these things. Those are their plans.