OGL The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...


log in or register to remove this ad



dave2008

Legend
do you have a list of what revisions you would want?
I listed most of them in my server feedback (but missed one), First, I need to explain that I am not a lawyer and any changes I am described intended to make the license more open and less revocable. If I suggest something that contradicts that intent, it is a mistake / misunderstanding on my part.

Proposed Changes:

Section 1. (c): add sub-paragraph (iv): Your Content may contain other Licensed Content that is not Your Content but is not Unlicensed Content.

The intent with this change is to allow share-a-like work and use other content that people haven't identified as "Unlicensed Content," i.e. "Product Identity."

Section 5., (b) revise as follows: "You permit the use of your Content in agreement with the terms of this License with any Work also bound by this License. You must clearly identify Unlicensed Content that is excluded from the terms of this license...

Basically I am trying, poorly, to say the anything under this license is free to be used by others using this license, unless it is specifically identified as "Unlicensed Content," what was called "Product Identity" in OGL 1.0(a).

Section 6. (f): I don't know how to word this one at all, but I want this revision to do 3 things:
  1. An independent 3rd party provides the definition of what is hateful / harmful
  2. This clause only pertains to work using this license.
  3. There is a review / appeal process be an independent body (back to #1 probably).
Section 7. Strike out the last provision of sub-paragraph (i); or violate section 6(f). However, I would allow termination after a review and appeal process as noted above.

Section 9. (d): Replace with (from @Snarf Zagyg):
"In case any one or more of the provisions of this License shall be found to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable in any respect, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions contained in this License will not be affected."

The intent is to allow the rest of the license remain valid if something is deemed illegal / unenforceable. May need a provision to update as needed to make legal / enforceable.
 


dave2008

Legend
Assuming 1.2 is ANYTHING beyond 1.0, but with 'we were wrong, this license is irrevocable, and will remain as such until the earth freezes over and humanity is extinct' then I have no use for it, and they could have, should have, left well enough alone.

1.0 remains, and its all good. Nothing else is acceptable.
I have been told by lawyers it is not all good. I would rather they rewrite it with better and stronger language. If they are going down this road, make a better document IMO. Just because something has worked, doesn't mean it is good or couldn't be improved.
 

Scribe

Legend
I have been told by lawyers it is not all good. I would rather they rewrite it with better and stronger language. If they are going down this road, make a better document IMO. Just because something has worked, doesn't mean it is good or couldn't be improved.

I mean jeez. If you have faith that Wizards will be honest, and operate in good faith to make a better 1.0, I just dont know what to say.

The threads and examples and proof, is all over this forum, all over twitter, all over the media.

Whatever you think of them, if you still have positive expectations, I just dont get it.

Could it be improved? Sure, hypothetically. By Wizbro? I wont hold my breath.
 


dave2008

Legend
they are only separate because otherwise only those accepting 1.2 would give up on 1.0a, and given the two options that will be literally no one
Also, if OGL 1.0(a) is upheld in court (which I think it would), it could invalidate OGL 1.2 if it include the deauthorization.
 

dave2008

Legend
I mean jeez. If you have faith that Wizards will be honest, and operate in good faith to make a better 1.0, I just dont know what to say.

The threads and examples and proof, is all over this forum, all over twitter, all over the media.

Whatever you think of them, if you still have positive expectations, I just dont get it.

Could it be improved? Sure, hypothetically. By Wizbro? I wont hold my breath.
I don't need faith, I can see with my own eyes and make a decision when it is finalized. It is happening right now, it is under a "playtest." If they don't get there, fine. I am just not going to jump to conclusions because of previous errors and I will always hope for the best.
 


dave2008

Legend
I just don't know how to engage with this attitude. WotC made a promise, kept it for 20 years, then abruptly decided they could tear it down. Is it just pragmatism, assuming that's a fait accompli and all we can do is get some smaller concession now? Even in that case, why would we not start with our preferred arrangement of the previous status quo and let them wear us down?

More significantly though, I feel betrayed and angry, and I don't know why I shouldn't demand that would be remedied and apologized for, in whatever form that takes. This is not a situation two parties with conflicting goals both showed up to and now have to negotiate the best compromise. We had an agreement, one side has acted in bad faith, and I want them to stop and ideally show remorse.
I felt betrayed and angry too. But all the calls to burn it all down have shifted my stance a bit. I don't want to burn it down and will hold off on that as long as I can. If things don't get correct, as I said in the post you quoted, then go ahead an burn it all down. Is that really so hard to understand?
 

Scribe

Legend
I don't need faith, I can see with my own eyes and make a decision when it is finalized. It is happening right now, it is under a "playtest." If they don't get there, fine. I am just not going to jump to conclusions because of previous errors and I will always hope for the best.

Fair enough. They have already proven who they are, but fair enough.

wewew.PNG
 

mamba

Hero
I think that is not differentiated enough for me. WotC is an "it".
I use "they" for people.

The leaks show that at least someone at "wotc" was not ok with all that happening.
and the actions show that they have no say in this, what difference does that make anyway, what matters is the outcome.

If 3 people break into my house and then argue whether to shoot me, if one of them does that is enough ;)

So we are basically back to ‘we cannot boycott WotC because there are also some decent people working there’, which earlier you denied
 


and the actions show that they have no say in this, what difference does that make anyway, what matters is the outcome.

If 3 people break into my house and then argue whether to shoot me, if one if them does that is enough ;)

Ok... I don't think this comparison works.

It is rather: 4 people go on a ride. And the driver suddenly tries to shoot you.
But 1 of them warns you and at the same time distracts him, so the driver shoots himself in the foot.
So do you hold the other three accountable for the attempt to shoot you? Are they guilty by association?

Or will you be happy, that 3 people are innocent, one of them a hero and happily go on a ride with them after the one who shot himself is thrown out?
 


mamba

Hero
Ok... I don't think this comparison works.

It is rather: 4 people go on a ride. And the driver suddenly tries to shoot you.
But 1 of them warns you and at the same time distracts him, so the driver shoots himself in the foot.
So do you hold the other three accountable for the attempt to shoot you? Are they guilty by association?
I am not sure yours is better, we do not know that it was WotC that leaked.

As to shooting themselves in the foot. No, they still get away with their robbery, they still managed to shoot me, I just survived. They are no worse off under 1.2, which is what your scenario implies, the community is
 

I am not sure yours is better, we do not know that it was WotC that leaked.

As to shooting themselves in the foot. No, they still get away with their robbery, they still managed to shoot me, I just survived. They are no worse off under 1.2, which is what your scenario implies, the community is

Oh. Right now that is unclear. What is certain is that they shot themselves in the foot. The collateral damage is yet to be determined.
It might range from some delays (as OGL 1.0b just add irrevocable soon, which is probably unlikely), to lethal damage, if OGL 1.1 in disguise takes effect.

This is the only thing I imply. The dice are thrown, and have not yet landed. It is still time to nudge them for an amenable outcome and get out of a lose-lose situation what any war might bring.
 

mamba

Hero
What is certain is that they shot themselves in the foot.
what is certain is that it was not a clean heist, to stay in the analogy. At this point they still got away with a lot of stuff and shot me (not lethally), but are themselves unharmed, apart from a few scratches

The collateral damage is yet to be determined.
It might range from some delays (as OGL 1.0b just add irrevocable soon, which is probably unlikely), to lethal damage, if OGL 1.1 in disguise takes effect.
lethal? As in D&D stops selling and WotC shelves it? Not seeing that at all

This is the only thing I imply. The dice are thrown, and have not yet landed. It is still time to nudge them for an amenable outcome and get out of a lose-lose situation what any war might bring.
so far it is a win-lose, just not as drastically as it started out
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top