Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse

[dave2008]

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]

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Justice and Rule]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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]

"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]

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.