And they're officially deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
They are asserting that they can deauthorise 1.0a. Let's not repeat their propaganda as if it were fact.
That's not a lie. That's just their truth that people don't want to hear.
No, it's a lie. Because if controlling that was actually the reason, they would not be also releasing anything under CC-BY which lacks such controls. Unless that bit is the lie (which is probably is, but it could well be both).
Question (not just to you, but anyone who thinks this). If there are no changes in the new OGL except this part (and the contact part), then how is it a lie? What other reason is there to have a new OGL if this is the only change and it's a lie?
The question is based on a faulty premise, because even apart from the morality clause, the changes compared with 1.0a are
humongous.
Okay, people smarter than me: why did they go with CC for the "core mechanics"?
To deflect attention from their continued monstrous actions in a way that does not actually cost the anything. Sadly, if this thread is any indication, it seems to be working.
Ugh. If I've learned one thing from all this nonsense, at least, it's this: when it comes to corporations, never ascribe to stupidity what you can attribute to malice.
The trouble with that particular saying (either way around) is that stupidity and malice very often go hand in hand.
Get to use the mechanics without rewording it with the CC, right? Without it, you get the mechanics (hopefully) but need to figure out how to express it so that it doesn't infringe, right?
The language of what is released under CC looks pretty vague. I would not trust this WotC not to sue over a perceived breach of it (assuming the CC thing actually happens of course - I get the feeling they are planning to claim that they got negative feedback over the CC offer so will not be going forward with it once they think enough dust has settled).
Honestly a pretty good article here finally. If they had just led with this, they honestly could have entirely avoided the past week+ firestorm.
I for one would still have seen all the toxicity and my reaction would have been pretty similar. But given all the people in this thread who seem to think this is a massive improvement you're probably right.
Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....
The first of those is highly debatable. The second if flat out false (and an unwarrented attack on a large number of your fellow posters).
Not for me personally. I will mention in the survey that this is the clause that needs work. Just remove themselves from determine what is hateful and I am basically good with it.
Removing their ability to determine what is a violation of the clause would risk making the licence actually irrevocable, which is the last thing they want.
that is plenty, not sure what you were expecting, but that is already more than we have today
No, it is a lot
less than we have today. Today we have 23 years of open content and a licence that works pretty well. They are trying to destroy all that, but lets not play into their hands and pretend that they have already succeeded.
www.dndbeyond.com
