Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kinematics" data-source="post: 8904350" data-attributes="member: 6932123">So, on the morality clause: An example of the problematic nature of such things is a story from just yesterday, of a streamer (very progressive/left wing) being banned from TikTok for a clip of a Twitch stream where he was explaining some details about Black Live Matters. It was banned for "hateful content".  He was unbanned today.  This is just to illustrate that many things that people would assume would be "OK" can be banned — and without any recourse or appeals process, according to the wording of the leaked draft.Now, this example is content on a private platform. It would be like Morrus banning someone on these forums for posting stuff that he's indicated are against the rules. That's perfectly reasonable in and of itself. The problem is that an "Open Gaming License" is not a private platform. It is, in theory, an agreement that any publisher can make with any consumer.  Giving someone moderation powers over the use of the license immediately cuts off the ability of any other publisher to make their own decisions about such matters.If Paizo released something under the OGL, and Kobold Press made use of it to create an adventure module, this morality clause inserts Wizard of the Coast into the agreement as the sole arbitrator of what is acceptable, regardless of what the other parties felt.  This, by itself, fundamentally breaks the idea of an open license.On top of that, you have the lack of re-sharable open content, the revocation of the previous agreement, and the ability to unilaterally change the license at any time, and the entire concept of "open license" is broken in so many ways as to be completely unsalvageable.This proposed "OGL" is essentially purely an agreement with Wizard of the Coast with respect to D&D, and in no way, shape, or form an open license. Conflating this proposed license with the original is itself deceptive and harmful.  Someone asked whether the morality clause plus irrevocability would be enough to consider it acceptable. My answer is "No", for the above reasons. The morality clause by itself breaks the fundamentals of the agreement.  In fact, I very much hope the people working on the ORC don't get trapped into thinking this is a beneficial change they should consider.</blockquote>

Verification