Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 8915148" data-attributes="member: 7023840"><p>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 <em>bribe anyone to get what they want</em>.</p><p></p><p>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. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /></p><p></p><p>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 <em>feedback </em>to it.</p><p></p><p>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. <em>That's probably why it is there</em>.</p><p></p><p>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-</p><p><em>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.</em></p><p><em>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.</em></p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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? </p><p></p><p></p><p>*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, <em>Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE! </em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 8915148, member: 7023840"] 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 [I]bribe anyone to get what they want[/I]. 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 [I]feedback [/I]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. [I]That's probably why it is there[/I]. 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- [I]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.[/I] 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, [I]Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE! [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse
Top