Reading between the lines, what they left out in the statement are the things they don't intend to budge about. Which would still be pretty bad for the Community.
Well, I'm eager to see what OGL 2.0 looks like, and the input the community will have in it (which is in itself something you would not expect the evil masterminds narrative that folks drunk in their anger keep muttering on and on about here).
Maybe D&D Beyond can get back into streaming its content without the frothing mob waiting to abuse or harass them in the comments.
Personally I will be happy with nothing less than a statement that assures us that 3.5 and 5e content we create will continue to be under the 1.0a OGL, as the wording of 1.0a has always been thought by the general public to mean that the document was to stand in perpetuity and would be irrevocable.
They said "will continue to be licensed", and there's a limit to what's possible in a short statement. They claim they'll have a revised OGL up for comment by the 20th, might as well just wait for that to actually come out? It could turn out to be bad, it could turn out to be fine, it will probably turn out to be ten times as many words as the existing OGL because they appear to have actual lawyers involved instead of random fans.
Well, I'm eager to see what OGL 2.0 looks like, and the input the community will have in it (which is in itself something you would not expect the evil masterminds narrative that folks drunk in their anger keep muttering on and on about here).
Maybe D&D Beyond can get back into streaming its content without the frothing mob waiting to abuse or harass them in the comments.
The people "drunk in their anger" bought a dialogue on this issue.
Well, I'm eager to see what OGL 2.0 looks like, and the input the community will have in it (which is in itself something you would not expect the evil masterminds narrative that folks drunk in their anger keep muttering on and on about here).
Maybe D&D Beyond can get back into streaming its content without the frothing mob waiting to abuse or harass them in the comments.
aww, but i met the nicest new friends at the last witch hunt mob
I think the minimum change that I will accept. Put out a new 1.1 OGL make it identical to 1.0 OGL except make it irrevocable. This would automatically allow all content in the 5e 3.5e available. I mean literally identical. Only a statement about it being irrevocable by anyone.
After that create a 2.0 OGL for OneDnD or whatever they decide to call it. Until they make 1.0 OGL irrevocable all other discussion is disingenuous because tomorrow they can change their mind and put out 2.1.1110 "psyche we were joking".
This really isn't happening unless a court forces it, so if that's your minimum you may as well jump ship now.
Seriously.
People being upset halted 1.1 in it's tracks and forced them to the table to negotiate and do this as a public process.
Stop trying to convince people this goal is pointless - it's obviously something we can push for, and maybe reach.
And that's fine, commendable even. But in no statement they've made before or since has "1.0a will remain completely untouched except to be made irrevocable" even been suggested as a possibility.
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
One thing to keep in mind, they don't have to revoke or de-authorize 1.0a. They can always publish a new SRD under a new license and we can choose to use that or not.
Well, I'm eager to see what OGL 2.0 looks like, and the input the community will have in it (which is in itself something you would not expect the evil masterminds narrative that folks drunk in their anger keep muttering on and on about here).
Maybe D&D Beyond can get back into streaming its content without the frothing mob waiting to abuse or harass them in the comments.
The people "drunk in their anger" bought a dialogue on this issue.
Nope. They just harassed and abused the DDB staff, while trying to whip the rest of the community into the same odd bizarre outrage over their own personal vices with WotC.
3rd Party Content creators forced this discourse to happen, and the people that supported them by canceling their subs.
They're the folks this statement is talking to, not to the people saying WotC stole their lunch money and pushed their grandma off a cliff, using an AI GM that bans the homebrews that it charges royalties on (herp derp, lol).
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
Why? A big part of the reason this is coming up is because the original OGL was poorly drafted. As long as the new terms are reasonable, replacing a badly written document with a well written document is an upgrade.
The reason for this is transparent. This wasn't posted by "D&D Beyond Staff", it was posted by a named WotC employee who just made an account specifically to post this. This was done intentionally so that the higher ups at Hasbro can put a face on this and have someone they can sacrifice if future news angers the community even more. Poor Kyle drew the short straw. Ignore the decoy.
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
Why? A big part of the reason this is coming up is because the original OGL was poorly drafted. As long as the new terms are reasonable, replacing a badly written document with a well written document is an upgrade.
Many people don't care What they put in OGL 2.0 or whatever it is, so long as the document doesn't try to claim 1.0a is deauthorized or invalid.
I dont think a more restrictive OGL is in their interests, but whatever. It's the "trying to get out of past promises" part that's galling.
And no, saying that previously published stuff won't be touched isn't the same thing. 1.0a is clearly intended to be usable to publish stuff for 3.5 and 5e, without stupid limitations like "no video games", forever. That was the promise they made, and license they wrote.
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
Why? A big part of the reason this is coming up is because the original OGL was poorly drafted. As long as the new terms are reasonable, replacing a badly written document with a well written document is an upgrade.
For a "badly written document" it served surprisingly well for 23 years, and enabled businesses and creators to grow. It contributed much to the popularity of D&D and D&D-derived games. The OGL 1.0a was well written, and had a clear purpose that the former employess of WotC who were there when it was drafted still attest to today. The only badly written paragrpah in retrospect was #9. The one that WotC is now trying to exploit in a never intended way.
But WotC seems to reaching its goal nevertheless. A lot of companies and creators won't be using OGL 1.0a going forward. They will turn to licenses that are truly open and truly free. But that won't profit WotC in any way whatsoever. Not sure, if that was really the intent of a new OGL ;)
For a "badly written document" it served surprisingly well for 23 years
The most obvious way it's a badly written document is that it enabled this entire situation by failing to define whether prior editions could be deauthorized or revoked (and no, those aren't the same thing). I'm sure it has many other flaws, there's a reason legal documents have bloated word counts.
This is a good statement that should satisfy a lot of the outstanding anger. It:
1. Reaffirms commitments from the first statement;
2. Offers a full apology for both the drafts and the delays with responding;
3. Addresses the issue with modification the first statement did not address, and addressed it by committing to future comments rather than unilateral revisions;
4. Is letting folks know they’ll be able to to directly communicate with Wizards and provide feedback;
5. Clarifies what will not be covered by the OGL update; and
6. Specifically provides a delivery date for the actual text of the next draft of the document.
All of those items are things folks have been clamouring for since the prior statement, and represent solid positions on Wizards’ front. Certainly worth waiting until Friday to have the full document to know more, of course, but this was strong step in the right direction.
You underestimate the enduring power of nerd rage.
I'm fairly sure this was a last ditch effort to have us talk with the survey instead of our wallets.
Reading between the lines, what they left out in the statement are the things they don't intend to budge about. Which would still be pretty bad for the Community.
Well, I'm eager to see what OGL 2.0 looks like, and the input the community will have in it (which is in itself something you would not expect the evil masterminds narrative that folks drunk in their anger keep muttering on and on about here).
Maybe D&D Beyond can get back into streaming its content without the frothing mob waiting to abuse or harass them in the comments.
They said "will continue to be licensed", and there's a limit to what's possible in a short statement. They claim they'll have a revised OGL up for comment by the 20th, might as well just wait for that to actually come out? It could turn out to be bad, it could turn out to be fine, it will probably turn out to be ten times as many words as the existing OGL because they appear to have actual lawyers involved instead of random fans.
The people "drunk in their anger" bought a dialogue on this issue.
aww, but i met the nicest new friends at the last witch hunt mob
And that's fine, commendable even. But in no statement they've made before or since has "1.0a will remain completely untouched except to be made irrevocable" even been suggested as a possibility.
I'm for sure willing to reserve my judgement until I see what they come up with, but what they mean by "continue to be licensed" is that things that are already made by third parties will continue to be licensed under 1.0a, not that future 3.5 and 5e 3rd party content will be licensed under such. That, to my understanding, would be licensed under the new OGL, which I find unacceptable at this point.
Well that would be a better starting statement than the last.
At least the ruckus making was not for nothing it seemed.
Still - people lets be civil ok?
One thing to keep in mind, they don't have to revoke or de-authorize 1.0a. They can always publish a new SRD under a new license and we can choose to use that or not.
They still have yet to state they are not touching 1,0a. They are dancing around their attempt to revoke 1.0a.
Until they outright state that 1.0a is irrevocable and is still valid this continues.
Nope. They just harassed and abused the DDB staff, while trying to whip the rest of the community into the same odd bizarre outrage over their own personal vices with WotC.
3rd Party Content creators forced this discourse to happen, and the people that supported them by canceling their subs.
They're the folks this statement is talking to, not to the people saying WotC stole their lunch money and pushed their grandma off a cliff, using an AI GM that bans the homebrews that it charges royalties on (herp derp, lol).
Why? A big part of the reason this is coming up is because the original OGL was poorly drafted. As long as the new terms are reasonable, replacing a badly written document with a well written document is an upgrade.
The reason for this is transparent. This wasn't posted by "D&D Beyond Staff", it was posted by a named WotC employee who just made an account specifically to post this. This was done intentionally so that the higher ups at Hasbro can put a face on this and have someone they can sacrifice if future news angers the community even more. Poor Kyle drew the short straw. Ignore the decoy.
Many people don't care What they put in OGL 2.0 or whatever it is, so long as the document doesn't try to claim 1.0a is deauthorized or invalid.
I dont think a more restrictive OGL is in their interests, but whatever. It's the "trying to get out of past promises" part that's galling.
And no, saying that previously published stuff won't be touched isn't the same thing. 1.0a is clearly intended to be usable to publish stuff for 3.5 and 5e, without stupid limitations like "no video games", forever. That was the promise they made, and license they wrote.
For a "badly written document" it served surprisingly well for 23 years, and enabled businesses and creators to grow. It contributed much to the popularity of D&D and D&D-derived games. The OGL 1.0a was well written, and had a clear purpose that the former employess of WotC who were there when it was drafted still attest to today. The only badly written paragrpah in retrospect was #9. The one that WotC is now trying to exploit in a never intended way.
But WotC seems to reaching its goal nevertheless. A lot of companies and creators won't be using OGL 1.0a going forward. They will turn to licenses that are truly open and truly free. But that won't profit WotC in any way whatsoever. Not sure, if that was really the intent of a new OGL ;)
The most obvious way it's a badly written document is that it enabled this entire situation by failing to define whether prior editions could be deauthorized or revoked (and no, those aren't the same thing). I'm sure it has many other flaws, there's a reason legal documents have bloated word counts.
You underestimate the enduring power of nerd rage.
#OpenDND
I'm still pressing X to doubt.
I don't believe a single thing WotC says until it's in official writing.
Can you just not? Take the loss (and you did lose!) and try again in a couple of years. Or better yet, never.
There is no doubt an internal (Intelligence) investigation check* being rolled by Hasbro Incorporated to ascertain the source of this debacle.
Hasbro Incorporated is the parent company thus granting them Legendary Actions:
Teleport
Searing Burst
Blinding Gaze
*of course, rolling with advantage!