Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="lkj" data-source="post: 8894750" data-attributes="member: 18646">I consider this announcement a very good step in the right direction. What will matter will be the actual license text. Until then, I don’t really have much opinion other than-- It’s a good sign that they are changing their approach in response to community feedback. We’ll see if I am satisfied once we have an actual document. Here’s the things that are true of me: I love D&D. I tend to like the products that WotC has been producing (both print and DDB). I’m generally a happy customer. And, honestly, that’s most of what will matter for whether I continue to buy their stuff. That’s true of most of the stuff I buy from most corporations (with the caveat, obviously, that my buying habits are also affected by egregious abusive behavior-- we are free to disagree on what rises to that level. I won’t argue it as it’s a personal thing). But the game is also important to me as an idea, and I do believe (though not strongly enough to argue it in absolute terms) that a strong 3PP community is good for the game and is probably good for WotC. Or at the least that the feeling of goodwill of having a good community of creators likely far outweighs whatever relatively trivial amount of money they are leaving on the table for other businesses (trivial in the context of a corporation that thinks in terms of millions and millions of dollars). So I’m very interested in not seeing the company that is the steward of D&D make moves that destroy that feeling of goodwill. So-- I’ve signed the petitions. I’ve canceled my DDB subscription. My coming back will be contingent on whether I feel that-- given the context of their being a corporation-- they’ve made reasonable adjustments to their approach. Even if they aren’t as far as I might like them to go (In an ideal world, they’d freely join the effort to create a license that operates independently of WotC-- working with Paizo and others to find mutually satisfying language. I honestly think they’d benefit in the long run. But I think that would likely be a bridge too far for a corporation working with a precious IP)Generally speaking, I find this discussion of whether to ‘trust’ WotC to be not helpful. Corporations are groups of individuals who change through time. There’s little point in trying to trust an entity which isn’t really a creature at all but a changing conglomeration of individuals who are trying to make money by producing things people want to buy. Trust-- in the context of a corporation-- is built into the documents and legal language. They can add language to the license which clearly makes it irrevocable or more clearly provides a safe harbor. They can make the 2.0 license safe and attractive enough that not being able to use 1.0 in the future isn’t such a big deal. We’ll see. And if they are being smart, the next draft of the license will be explicitly called a draft and they’ll say they are explicitly soliciting feedback. I’m fine with this being an iterative process.For my part, the line for my returning to buying their products is not ‘Now that they have erred, I will force them to their knees and insist that they concede to all my demands or I will forever shun them’. There just needs to be a reasonable compromise. And it’s fine that what is ‘reasonable’ will vary by customer and by 3PP partner. My 57 cents.AD</blockquote>

Verification