Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bagpuss" data-source="post: 8908585" data-attributes="member: 3987">Agreed and I think since &quot;harmful&quot; is something so unclear. I suspect it is so they could cut off certain publishers that continue to work with artists/writers that are problematic or are problematic themselves (I can think of an example in each case). I really don't like it as a clause but I see why they have put it in. It's probably the main reason this isn't truly an open license.No it doesn't that stuff is allowed in the OGL, but aren't in the Creative Commons bit, if you didn't use the OGL then you would have to come up with your own Elves. Use the OGL and you can use WotC ones. If you come up with your own Elves then you aren't infringing and don't need to use the OGL so it couldn't be terminated anyway. If you use their Elves then you are under the OGL and wouldn't infringe either because you are using it under license.This is more so they can stop people using Beholders or Eberron as a setting. I think the main concern that this clause is in to protect, is the &quot;bring an action challenging our ownership&quot; say you produce a feat or several feats, and later WotC produce a book that has similar feats. There have been writers in the past that have claimed WotC is copying their content. I don't think any have gone to court, but they have certainly claimed so on twitter (which is enough to damage their reputation (although not as much as OGL1.1)). They want to protect against that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bagpuss, post: 8908585, member: 3987"] Agreed and I think since "harmful" is something so unclear. I suspect it is so they could cut off certain publishers that continue to work with artists/writers that are problematic or are problematic themselves (I can think of an example in each case). I really don't like it as a clause but I see why they have put it in. It's probably the main reason this isn't truly an open license. No it doesn't that stuff is allowed in the OGL, but aren't in the Creative Commons bit, if you didn't use the OGL then you would have to come up with your own Elves. Use the OGL and you can use WotC ones. If you come up with your own Elves then you aren't infringing and don't need to use the OGL so it couldn't be terminated anyway. If you use their Elves then you are under the OGL and wouldn't infringe either because you are using it under license. This is more so they can stop people using Beholders or Eberron as a setting. I think the main concern that this clause is in to protect, is the [B]"bring an action challenging our ownership"[/B] say you produce a feat or several feats, and later WotC produce a book that has similar feats. There have been writers in the past that have claimed WotC is copying their content. I don't think any have gone to court, but they have certainly claimed so on twitter (which is enough to damage their reputation (although not as much as OGL1.1)). They want to protect against that. [/QUOTE]

Verification