Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8892742" data-attributes="member: 12731">The premise seems to be that if only WotC amends the OGL &quot;we're&quot; fine with that. But it's not &quot;us&quot; that the OGL needs to win back. Amendments to the OGL will have to win back the complete evaporation of trust, something the thread does not seem to consider. So my genuine &quot;+&quot; contribution is to note that it won't be enough to massage the legal details, the various OGL paragraphs.If you really wish to accomplish the thread's stated goal of writing an acceptable OGL you should discuss what the leak lost WotC, and what changes could bring back that which was lost. My answer to what was lost is: the 3PP's trust in WotC. My answer to what must be regained is: that trust -&nbsp; to such a considerable degree they would be willing to even keep publishing under OGL 1.0(a) much less a new OGL, restrictive or not.I think the changes need to be so massive it would make the result unrecognizable as a OGL 1.1b. The new version would have to backtrack nearly every concession it is asking of licensors, and completely reverse the business deal (from &quot;deeply unattractive&quot; if not &quot;fatal to our business&quot; to something like &quot;this feels safe and profitable enough to actually consider&quot;).But in the spirit of plus threads:WotC cannot reserve the right to make any changes without the approval of the licensor, or at least the ability to opt out of the changes and keep selling existing stuff under old versions. If they stated the grace period was 180 days, not 30 days, and only affected stuff published AFTER that grace period, then the license would at least not be an obvious trap.WotC cannot ask for a share of revenue. Only actual profit. No company willingly risks ruin by a) having a bad day but still b) have to pay as if the day was good.WotC cannot ask licensors to just hand over their rights to their stuff. If they want to dangle a carrot (such as &quot;if you choose to grant us these rights we'll halve the fees&quot;) that's okay, but the point is, you need to be able to politely say &quot;no thanks I'd rather pay the full charge&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 8892742, member: 12731"] The premise seems to be that if only WotC amends the OGL "we're" fine with that. But it's not "us" that the OGL needs to win back. Amendments to the OGL will have to win back the complete evaporation of trust, something the thread does not seem to consider. So my genuine "+" contribution is to note that it won't be enough to massage the legal details, the various OGL paragraphs. If you really wish to accomplish the thread's stated goal of writing an acceptable OGL you should discuss what the leak lost WotC, and what changes could bring back that which was lost. My answer to what was lost is: the 3PP's trust in WotC. My answer to what must be regained is: that trust - to such a considerable degree they would be willing to even keep publishing under OGL 1.0(a) much less a new OGL, restrictive or not. I think the changes need to be so massive it would make the result unrecognizable as a OGL 1.1b. The new version would have to backtrack nearly every concession it is asking of licensors, and completely reverse the business deal (from "deeply unattractive" if not "fatal to our business" to something like "this feels safe and profitable enough to actually consider"). But in the spirit of plus threads: WotC cannot reserve the right to make any changes without the approval of the licensor, or at least the ability to opt out of the changes and keep selling existing stuff under old versions. If they stated the grace period was 180 days, not 30 days, and only affected stuff published AFTER that grace period, then the license would at least not be an obvious trap. WotC cannot ask for a share of revenue. Only actual profit. No company willingly risks ruin by a) having a bad day but still b) have to pay as if the day was good. WotC cannot ask licensors to just hand over their rights to their stuff. If they want to dangle a carrot (such as "if you choose to grant us these rights we'll halve the fees") that's okay, but the point is, you need to be able to politely say "no thanks I'd rather pay the full charge". [/QUOTE]

Verification