Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8909039" data-attributes="member: 12251"><p>They are asserting that they can deauthorise 1.0a. Let's not repeat their propaganda as if it were fact.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>The question is based on a faulty premise, because even apart from the morality clause, the changes compared with 1.0a are <em>humongous</em>.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The trouble with that particular saying (either way around) is that stupidity and malice very often go hand in hand.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>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).</p><p></p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p></p><p>No, it is a lot <em>less</em> 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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="glass, post: 8909039, member: 12251"] They are asserting that they can deauthorise 1.0a. Let's not repeat their propaganda as if it were fact. 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). The question is based on a faulty premise, because even apart from the morality clause, the changes compared with 1.0a are [I]humongous[/I]. 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. The trouble with that particular saying (either way around) is that stupidity and malice very often go hand in hand. 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). 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. 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). 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. No, it is a lot [I]less[/I] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License
Top