MonsterEnvy
Legend
So what?
New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)
So "de-authorization" is not off the table, it is just back burnered until they find a way to do it without kicking the hornet's nest. So if that is your bugbear, as you indicated, then them dropping it from OGL 1.1 doesn't actually mean anything.
MonsterEnvy
Legend
Ok.
I just think they should let the old 1.0 stand as it’s least likely to cause them trouble.
To be exact I want what is best for D&D, and I think peace with its competitors and off shoots is best.
I dunno the fact that they backed down could weaken their case in the future. It depends somewhat on how they back down. If they make no concessions that is one thing, if they offer some concessions on the 1.0 OGL that is another thing.
If the OGL 1.1 comes out looking different than the leak, you can be certain they will not say "We heard the community and we changed course." They will say, "That was a very early draft that wasn't ever really seriously considered and this is what we were really going for all along. Oh, and hey, look, we signed Kobold. Southlands 1D&D, y'all!"
Maybe, it really depends on, who they sign, how mad the community is, and how much they value the goodwill.
I'm gonna go a little left of what I've seen so far here.
Properly define irrevocable to mean that even if the source document ( SRD, etc ) is removed from availability due to license revocation for particular source material it may continue to be used in existing and (internal and external) derivative projects. IE, Mutants and Masterminds could continue indefinitely if the 3.5 SRD was withdrawn. New editions and sourcebooks would be seen a
An option for withdrawing a source material from further use. A long, fixed cure period that allows works in progress to meet a minimum level of publication to qualify as published. I think a year is more than adequate.
I think there needs to be a reasonable loophole for gaming utility software.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Dies… or abandons it. For people who are fans of Paizo’s efforts, it’s not a case of betrayal. It’s a case of keeping a version of the game alive while the owner diverts itself to a very different version.
Besides, the betrayal term is a better fit for WotC’s actions with licensing in the run up to 4e with respect to their protégé. They spin off products they no longer want to create or manage to former employees striking out on their own then, when it suits them, rip the rug out from under them. They may have had the legal right to do it, but legal isn’t the same as good and decent.
That's exactly my point.
WOTC never expected any 3PPs to make a complete OGL game that actually competed with a D&D edition that they actively supported. They expected what happened, that some may try but fail. The success of PF after the fanbase split of 4e was not expected by them as they though teir power would easily prevail.
The core thing is as a community we have to argee to what we offer WOTC.
Because WOTC is beholden to Hasbro and Hasbro must provide for its investor and shareholders. Legitimency, legality, goodnesss, and decency are not the core of this.
The truth is WOTC as nice to give us the the OGL 1.0. And the D&D community fostered a community and mindset for it. So much so that we didn't realize how good we had it. The OGL 1.0 is not we'd see in most other industries.
WOTC/Hasbro is getting greedy. Twice. IF we as a community don't offer WOTC/Hasbro something they can show their shareholders, they won't listen to us. IF someone wished on a star and give D&D so some other company like Paizo, they'd eventually get greedy too if they are the tip top. The compromise must eventually be made or we'll get something like the potential new OGL.
Something has to be fed to the greed monster eventually.
Similar Threads
