Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 6531350" data-attributes="member: 37579">I wouldn't say &quot;terrible&quot; just incomplete.It should handle content generation by fans. But it doesn't and directs people to the licence meant for publishers.It should provide complete terms of use. But it doesn't and directs people to the terms meant for posting on community site. The terms make sense from a forum perspective. If I post an awesome feat on their message boards or blogs and then it appears in a book, it puts WotC at legal risk. Having them technically &quot;own&quot; any content I post saves their butt. But when the &quot;service&quot; is a kit for fan sites hosted elsewhere, the terms make zero sense. It's a good example of what I've said about the WotC legal team not having time for D&amp;D, let alone its fans. They can't be bothered to write up a complete licence, so they just use some existing content, say &quot;good enough&quot;, and go back to other concerns.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 6531350, member: 37579"] I wouldn't say "terrible" just incomplete. It should handle content generation by fans. But it doesn't and directs people to the licence meant for publishers. It should provide complete terms of use. But it doesn't and directs people to the terms meant for posting on community site. The terms make sense from a forum perspective. If I post an awesome feat on their message boards or blogs and then it appears in a book, it puts WotC at legal risk. Having them technically "own" any content I post saves their butt. But when the "service" is a kit for fan sites hosted elsewhere, the terms make zero sense. It's a good example of what I've said about the WotC legal team not having time for D&D, let alone its fans. They can't be bothered to write up a complete licence, so they just use some existing content, say "good enough", and go back to other concerns. [/QUOTE]

Verification