Unless their lawyers are incompetent, and I doubt that very much*, they already know which parts they would never agree to if they were on the other end. The survey serves two purposes: 1. to change the conversation from "Why would we ever want to change the OGL?" to "In what specific ways does the OGL need to be changed?", and 2. to delay while appearing to be listening, in the hope that customers forget about the issue or assume it's being taken care of.
* See also "It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds." Really, the lawyers were so incompetent that they put in language allowing you to do exactly that, without meaning to? (Though there is an alternative that is almost as misleading: "our" could refer to the DDB Staff, who are listed as that post's authors, and who like the majority of employees knew nothing about the OGL being changed until the leaks. Thus being technically true but irrelevant to the intentions of those who actually did it. So many PR games are being played with subtle distinctions like that.)
Ya'll read section 9 of 1.0a? They don't have to get you to agree to an update to the license... and section 3 says you agree with them making updates as they see fit.
Either way, fighting them over some companies profits is capitalism at its finest.
Can anyone tell me exactly how the new OGLs would even impact YOU specifically?
I see the glaring issue with s.5. As it relates to s.7.a. but otherwise it's just gives them control of their product... in the same ways I hear arguments about people wanting control of their products...
Ya'll read section 9 of 1.0a? They don't have to get you to agree to an update to the license... and section 3 says you agree with them making updates as they see fit.
Have you read WotC's own interpretation of their license?
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?
A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
Can anyone tell me exactly how the new OGLs would even impact YOU specifically?
The VTT I use for my games could stop including its 5e system module, which is based on the SRD, and that would make it basically impossible to run games (players in different cities). Third party D&D compatible content could stop being published. Really looking forward to grabbing Flee, Mortals! when the VTT version is ready.
Life would go on, but with a whole lot of extra work and obstacles in the way of playing our game.
WotC can publish a new edition under whatever terms they like. It might be a repeat of 4e if those terms are bad, but that's their choice. What's not OK is pretending that they can de-license all previously released content.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Unless their lawyers are incompetent, and I doubt that very much*, they already know which parts they would never agree to if they were on the other end. The survey serves two purposes: 1. to change the conversation from "Why would we ever want to change the OGL?" to "In what specific ways does the OGL need to be changed?", and 2. to delay while appearing to be listening, in the hope that customers forget about the issue or assume it's being taken care of.
* See also "It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds." Really, the lawyers were so incompetent that they put in language allowing you to do exactly that, without meaning to? (Though there is an alternative that is almost as misleading: "our" could refer to the DDB Staff, who are listed as that post's authors, and who like the majority of employees knew nothing about the OGL being changed until the leaks. Thus being technically true but irrelevant to the intentions of those who actually did it. So many PR games are being played with subtle distinctions like that.)
Ya'll read section 9 of 1.0a? They don't have to get you to agree to an update to the license... and section 3 says you agree with them making updates as they see fit.
Either way, fighting them over some companies profits is capitalism at its finest.
Can anyone tell me exactly how the new OGLs would even impact YOU specifically?
I see the glaring issue with s.5. As it relates to s.7.a. but otherwise it's just gives them control of their product... in the same ways I hear arguments about people wanting control of their products...
Have you read WotC's own interpretation of their license?
https://web.archive.org/web/20211127200600/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
The VTT I use for my games could stop including its 5e system module, which is based on the SRD, and that would make it basically impossible to run games (players in different cities). Third party D&D compatible content could stop being published. Really looking forward to grabbing Flee, Mortals! when the VTT version is ready.
Life would go on, but with a whole lot of extra work and obstacles in the way of playing our game.
WotC can publish a new edition under whatever terms they like. It might be a repeat of 4e if those terms are bad, but that's their choice. What's not OK is pretending that they can de-license all previously released content.