Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8883804" data-attributes="member: 7039850">There are two layers of acceptability in this context. One is what I would consider publishing new content under, the other is what would not significantly alter my consumer patterns.As for the first I think a requirement would be anything that do not give wizards any clear priveleged rights to my content compared to others, and would make me confident that this state wouldn't change. 1.0a had that property, but due to the legal confusing being displayed recently it do not anymore. Hence for me to be interested in contributing to an ogl project in the future, the lisence would have to at the very least adress those legal ambiguities now brought to light.As for not changing my consumer patterns, I am much more accepting. In this regard nothing in the leaks from the draft seemed unacceptable to me as I read &quot;deauthorized&quot; as simply refering to the section 9 formulation. In this interpretation the formulation would have no other effect than preventing use of 1.1 material in 1.0a publications. This would be something I would find completely reasonable and acceptable from a consumer perspective.The leaked term seemingly granting wizards effectively exclusive unlimited use of 1.0a content in a 1.1 non-static electronic setting would worry me, but likely not change my consumer pattern before wizard actually started abusing it, like putting tome of beast creatures behind pay wall on D&amp;D beyond without atributing or paying royalties to kobold press.As such it currently seem very unlikely the new ogl is anything I would accept from a creator perspective, but I still sincerilly hope it will be something I can accept from a consumer perspective.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8883804, member: 7039850"] There are two layers of acceptability in this context. One is what I would consider publishing new content under, the other is what would not significantly alter my consumer patterns. As for the first I think a requirement would be anything that do not give wizards any clear priveleged rights to my content compared to others, and would make me confident that this state wouldn't change. 1.0a had that property, but due to the legal confusing being displayed recently it do not anymore. Hence for me to be interested in contributing to an ogl project in the future, the lisence would have to at the very least adress those legal ambiguities now brought to light. As for not changing my consumer patterns, I am much more accepting. In this regard nothing in the leaks from the draft seemed unacceptable to me as I read "deauthorized" as simply refering to the section 9 formulation. In this interpretation the formulation would have no other effect than preventing use of 1.1 material in 1.0a publications. This would be something I would find completely reasonable and acceptable from a consumer perspective. The leaked term seemingly granting wizards effectively exclusive unlimited use of 1.0a content in a 1.1 non-static electronic setting would worry me, but likely not change my consumer pattern before wizard actually started abusing it, like putting tome of beast creatures behind pay wall on D&D beyond without atributing or paying royalties to kobold press. As such it currently seem very unlikely the new ogl is anything I would accept from a creator perspective, but I still sincerilly hope it will be something I can accept from a consumer perspective. [/QUOTE]

Verification