Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8914916" data-attributes="member: 19857">The CC-BY stuff is the only stuff that is actually being "open licensed". And that's good, though I would argue that if Wizards is actually concerned about people using their name in vain they should release it under CC0 and not require that everyone put their name on the books they sell since CC-BY has exactly the same "a bad actor could use our stuff with our name on it and we can't do anything about it" problem that the OGL does. The CC0 at least no longer requires that everyone put Wizards name on their book whether they want to or not to use it. (Also I'd argue that CC0 is closer to what Wizards is actually doing with putting this content under a CC license in the first place - which is acknowledgement that these are the parts of the rules that they'd have a heavy lift accusing someone of violating their IP over if they tried in court.)The OGL 1.2 is not an open license in its current form and even with changes is unlikely to get there unless Wizards backs down a lot. It's a radically different kind of license than the OGL is - the OGL is an open share-alike license with provisions for product identity. Meaning that anyone can use the license without approval and everyone who does allows other people to use their works under that license as long as they use the same license. With a carve out for listing things that you're not sharing.The OGL 1.2 is a two party license between Wizards and the content producer. Wizards has outlined a number of ways they can terminate your license if they choose to. And there's no provision for including other people's work at all. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that under this license you have to get explicit permission and another license from someone else to incorporate their work into your new product because the way this license is written it's an agreement just between Wizards and "you" and Wizards' content and "your" content is what is covered. It's a completely different mindset around licensing than the OGL was. They need to take the word "open" off the front if they want to keep it like this. (Of course then they can't exploit Section 9 of the OGL 1.0a in the basely cynical way it looks like they're trying to do if they change the name, because that makes the game they're playing more obvious.)</blockquote>

Verification