It's better. It's certainly better. But it's still not good. These are suggestions I would make for their feedback survey.
So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form.
As always, thoughtful and well-considered. That said, as I was reading your post I kept coming to what I think is a large, and possibly irreconcilable divide.
If we accept the premise that Hasbro is determined to update the OGL ("de-authorize" OGL 1.0a), we inevitably come to the same issue. They want to change it. They are determined to replace OGL 1.0a. We can discuss and examine the reasons for this (I think that, given what they have retreated on and what remains, the desire to control the image of the brand is paramount), but it appears that this is the case. With that in mind, everything they do will be worse than what was before
. It will always be fundamentally flawed because while the material they release under the CC is "open," the licensing agreement under OGL 2.0 (or whatever version it ends up being) will always only be, at best, "open-ish," which is to say ... not open.
I think that this is fundamental to keep in mind when discussing this. In other words, unless Hasbro is just like, "Eh, whatevs, man, OGL 1.0a 4LYFE" whatever is on offer will always be fundamentally flawed
if you are comparing it to what came before.
On the other hand, this is (as you acknowledge) better. Assuming that there is a new OGL, I think the fundamental dividing line is always going to be the harmful/obscene/harassing/illegal content provision. Here's the debate as I see it:
Hasbro: We need this provision. This is about protecting our product and our brand from nitwits like nuTSR and others that might try and use this license and make us look bad. When we make mistakes (Hardozee) we can correct it. But if a 3PP is out there making D&D look bad, we need to be able to do something.
3PP: Yeah, but it's in your discretion. You can terminate it for any reason. And I can't do anything. How can I build a business with that uncertainty?
Hasbro: What? We want a successful community and 3PP. This is just to make sure that we get to decide what is best for the brand. We would work with anyone in good faith. We just don't want to get tied up in court forever because we're trying to get rid of some Stormfront D&D. But if you're working in good faith, of course we'd work with you! You trust us, right?
3PP: .....you've got to be kidding me.
Anyway, that's the fundamental divide. Most companies (as you know) do have the right to terminate licenses, at their discretion, for certain conduct that harms the brand. It's just that ... there isn't any trust. On the other hand, Hasbro isn't going to let people sue them over the decision, and is unlikely to want to go to arbitration or something similar.
And even if you go to an independent person appointed for these disputes (or panel of three), the problem is that you have to have enforceable standards. "I know it when I see it," is a famous remark about obscenity, but it also shows the difficulty in determining these types of cases. A good faith provision would help, but the devil is in the details.
Good post, as usual.