Did anyone end up listening to that Opening Arguments podcast that was supposed to debunk the whole Gizmodo article or something? I know it's out, but I'm just not that interested in listening to it. Wondering if anyone who did listen could give a summary.
I don't pay so haven't listened. But the comments on Twitter, are something...
It seems like an awful lot of OA's fans/patreon payers think OA missed the mark here, and missed the forest for the trees. And they describe the podcast quite a bit.
It apparently doesn't actually "debunk" anything. They spend 15-20 minutes "debunking" a single sentence Linda wrote, which
they've misunderstood (it is admittedly ambiguous the way Linda put it, but you can see from Linda's other articles that Linda does understand it correctly - the same way as the OA guys).
Everything else, it's just what we already know.
They were saying that they were going argue that 1.1 was opt-in, but then they did not.
They actually argued that 1.1 works exactly the way we think it does - i.e. you can never make a new OGL 1.0a product ever again. Doesn't matter if you've made them before.
The OA guys are pretty salty/whiny/butthurt about the reaction, I think this like, only second time ever their fans have been disappointed in them. Loads of people particularly said "Why the heck did you only focus on Linda's article, and didn't actually look the whole issue?" and they don't really have a great response for that.
However, they do agree NO ONE should ever sign the OGL 1.1! So there is that takeaway. They believe the provisions re: ownership were absolutely completely insane, and not the "boilerplate" WotC implied, and on those grounds, no-one should have signed.
