Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="The Sigil" data-source="post: 8907235" data-attributes="member: 2013">So, thoughts on my initial read-through:This is better than the leaked draft because it explicitly spells out that the deauthorization only applies to SRD content from WotC. It means other works that published under OGL 1.0a are still licensed under 1.0a. This removes some of the clouds around "what about material others contributed under the OGL 1.0a that isn't WotC's." So that's an improvement. But it's still trying to take away the ability to create new content under 1.0a based on works already released under the OGL 1.0a and that remains problematic for me.So... SRD 5.1 only, huh? This means all 3e, 3.5e, Modern, 5.0, and other SRDs released by Wizards is being withdrawn from the OGC Commons pool? That still makes this a hard no for me. While I can see they want to get better control over 5e/5.1e products, I feel it is completely unreasonable to lock up content for any version of D&D you are no longer actively supporting (e.g., 3e, 3.5e, Modern, etc.)Even if I feel there are valuable considerations being offered in OGL 1.2 (and the use of a creator logo that is visually adjacent to a TSR trademark IS a consideration of some value though I'm not sure how much) for which it might be worth considering to agree with WotC to change the terms under which I'm using their licensed content, I still don't like the attempt to unilaterally deauthorize 1.0a. However, doing things in this manner would work in a manner similar to the d20 STL - in exchange for more restrictive license terms than the base OGL 1.0a, you got the ability to use the d20 logo on their stuff. But the problem is WotC is still effectively trying to unilaterally take back a gift they've already given freely to each member of the community individually (rights to use content released under OGL 1.0a in perpetuity) without each individual's consent. (Emphasis mine) This is a non-starter for most companies as this clause empowers WotC to cut off a company at any time for effectively any reason ("sole right to decide") and deprives the company of the ability to contest that decision.As an extreme example, what happens if WotC determines that the term "dwarf" is a hateful, ableist term that denigrates people that have achondroplasia? Any licensee that has ever included the word "dwarf" in their products will now see their ability to create new product terminated under the terms of this morality clause!'Yes, TECHNICALLY the contract allows us to do that but we would NEVER use it in that way.' Sorry, that isn't good enough - maybe YOU don't intend to use it that way, but the next guy in your seat might. You need to actually write the contract in such a way that prevents it from being used to execute the extreme scenario. Improve the execution of this clause (particularly by adding a reasonable cure period or the ability to at least appear before an arbitrator or both) because in its current form it's completely unpalatable.</blockquote>

Verification