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

[mamba]

Nope. A different look at it. I don´t have to assume the worst.

I am not assuming the worst, I go by the behavior they showed

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am not assuming the worst, I go by the behavior they showed

Please define "they".

 

[mamba]

Please define "they".

WotC

 

[dave2008]

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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

WotC

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.

 

[dave2008]

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]

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]

I disagree with the first premise, and the current 1.2 is in an even sorrier state when it comes to being revocable, it clearly is while 1.0a has a slight chance of being revocable

It is like you are not even reading what I wrote. Not seeing the point of continuing.

 

[dave2008]

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]

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.