Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jer" data-source="post: 8912469" data-attributes="member: 19857">I'm not actually sure that they care about this as much as they claim. If they did they'd realize that releasing rules under a CC-BY puts them exactly in the same &quot;predicament&quot; image wise as releasing rules under the OGL. The OGL requires attribution, so Wizards name is on every product that uses it. But CC-BY also requires attribution and so Wizards name will also have to be on all of those products with no way for them to tell people to stop. There's no real difference.If their name was a concern like they're saying, they would have thought about that and suggested a CC0 license for those rules instead of a CC-BY. Which allows them to completely wash their hands of anyone using the rules because CC0 does not require attribution and they can claim that those similarities are just because of a common RPG heritage that we all share (which is actually true, but sometimes I think Wizards thinks they own more of that heritage than they actually do).This is exactly what I spent a few different boxes on the OGL survey explaining to whatever poor employee they make collate the responses. With copious examples. If they're sincere hopefully it's a &quot;oh we didn't think about that - that clause is a problem isn't it&quot; and they drop it. But I have suspicions that they're not actually sincere about it and it's actually a wedge to try to get into the good graces of the community by saying things they think we want to hear about diversity and inclusion (a common corporate tactic, sadly).I also spent some time pointing out all of the ways that this 1.2 OGL does not meet the commonly understood idea of an &quot;open&quot; license and they really should not be calling it an open license when it isn't one. GSL 2 would be a better name for it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jer, post: 8912469, member: 19857"] I'm not actually sure that they care about this as much as they claim. If they did they'd realize that releasing rules under a CC-BY puts them exactly in the same "predicament" image wise as releasing rules under the OGL. The OGL requires attribution, so Wizards name is on every product that uses it. But CC-BY also requires attribution and so Wizards name will also have to be on all of those products with no way for them to tell people to stop. There's no real difference. If their name was a concern like they're saying, they would have thought about that and suggested a CC0 license for those rules instead of a CC-BY. Which allows them to completely wash their hands of anyone using the rules because CC0 does not require attribution and they can claim that those similarities are just because of a common RPG heritage that we all share (which is actually true, but sometimes I think Wizards thinks they own more of that heritage than they actually do). This is exactly what I spent a few different boxes on the OGL survey explaining to whatever poor employee they make collate the responses. With copious examples. If they're sincere hopefully it's a "oh we didn't think about that - that clause is a problem isn't it" and they drop it. But I have suspicions that they're not actually sincere about it and it's actually a wedge to try to get into the good graces of the community by saying things they think we want to hear about diversity and inclusion (a common corporate tactic, sadly). I also spent some time pointing out all of the ways that this 1.2 OGL does not meet the commonly understood idea of an "open" license and they really should not be calling it an open license when it isn't one. GSL 2 would be a better name for it. [/QUOTE]

Verification