Sure it does. Wizards doesn't just publish the DnD game, they make their own settings and content. 3rd party content creators are their competition. The near-monopoly they seek is over the content for the game.
That isn't the definition of a Monopoly. Every company has a monopoly on their own Products. That's just a fact. That's expected. Sayign WotC is a Monopoly for D&D would say that D&D is a general commodity or service of the marketplace. It isn't. It is one system in the TTRP marketplace.
Monopoly: a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
WotC Doesnt' have a Monopoly on roleplaying games. They Own a particular set of settings and the D&D Trademark. They have every right to control how THAT trademark is used and who they give exclusive access to their IP. They own the "D&D 5e" rule books and their presentation of how to roll dice and build characters. There is no requirement for them to allow competition on their own brand and IPs. Now they have benefited from doing so, by growing the RP marketplace, but they are under no legal obligation to continue to assist their competes going forward.
So be clear what you are asking for, and what you are saying. WotC does not have a monopoly. Just like Google does not have a monopoly on Search, and Amazon is not a monopoly on online sales and shopping.
Dang, Wizards has "a monopoly" over their content and their work and the effort they put into making and developing the game and rules
If any other role-playing game said that they don't want other people to reproduce their content and their work without limitations, would everybody be hollering at them? No, of course not. But if the corporation is Wizards of the Coast and the role-playing game D&D, that somehow means Hasbro is monopolizing their own brand.
There is a clear double standard here. To all of the people who are viciously complaining about Wizards of the Coast wanting to control a bit of their own intellectual property, I would like to ask whether or not you would support, say, a small indie-RPG game designer who asked buyers not to reproduce their rules and sell supplements for the game?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Sure it does. Wizards doesn't just publish the DnD game, they make their own settings and content. 3rd party content creators are their competition. The near-monopoly they seek is over the content for the game.
That isn't the definition of a Monopoly. Every company has a monopoly on their own Products. That's just a fact. That's expected. Sayign WotC is a Monopoly for D&D would say that D&D is a general commodity or service of the marketplace. It isn't. It is one system in the TTRP marketplace.
Monopoly: a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
WotC Doesnt' have a Monopoly on roleplaying games. They Own a particular set of settings and the D&D Trademark. They have every right to control how THAT trademark is used and who they give exclusive access to their IP. They own the "D&D 5e" rule books and their presentation of how to roll dice and build characters. There is no requirement for them to allow competition on their own brand and IPs. Now they have benefited from doing so, by growing the RP marketplace, but they are under no legal obligation to continue to assist their competes going forward.
So be clear what you are asking for, and what you are saying. WotC does not have a monopoly. Just like Google does not have a monopoly on Search, and Amazon is not a monopoly on online sales and shopping.
That is the problem. These people are claiming WotC should not have that ownership of 5e and are somehow ethically wrong for trying to defend it.
Nope, don't put words in a person's mouth. For example, what I am saying is that WoTC should keep their word concerning the present OGL and continue it because they should keep their word. I am also saying that they should be legally compelled to do so but I'm not sure they will be because judges make up 'new law' through precedent and are overly influenced by big business. I am also saying that, as a customer, I reserve the right to not spend money supporting WoTC for whatever reason I so choose. I don't like what I hear about where they want to move in the future, rules changes dictated mainly for what will work best on programming a VTT, emphasis on subscriptions, and add-on charges (microtransactions). I want them to understand that there will be a cost to a change in policy that tries to pull more money out of my wallet for the same or less output of quality that I have been accustomed to from WoTC.
You own your own labor and your own products but if you make an agreement you should stick to it. They are guilty of breaking trust, short-term thinking, misunderstanding the rpg market, and clear distortions as to their motives and justifications.
Yeah, of course the parties that have no obligations do not want it to end. Why would they?
A telephone is only valuable if other people have telephones.
DnD is only valuable if people have other people to play DnD with.
Acting as though third parties aren't providing massive value back to DnD by creating content is completely missing the point, and just disregarding the role in the OGL of growing tabletop roleplaying.
You're also just disregarding that one of the reasons that people made content under the OGL was because they were promised it would last forever. There's no magical date where you can say, "Well, this perpetual license has been around long enough. Time to arbitrarily end it without any clause saying I can do so despite all the people still developing new products with it." There's no date where that isn't a epicly malicious bait and switch.
YouTube and Twitch are not in the content business, they are in the platform business. The creators are not also their competitors. The DDB forum is not a publishing/streaming platform.
These clauses don't just exist in platform licenses. Adobe Photoshop has a morality clause (6.9), an irrevocable licenseback clause (4.2), AND a terminate-for-any-reason clause (11.2) for ANYTHING (4.1) you create using their software. WotC's is peanuts in comparison.
Yeah, of course the parties that have no obligations do not want it to end. Why would they?
A telephone is only valuable if other people have telephones.
DnD is only valuable if people have other people to play DnD with.
Acting as though third parties aren't providing massive value back to DnD by creating content is completely missing the point, and just disregarding the role in the OGL of growing tabletop roleplaying.
You're also just disregarding that one of the reasons that people made content under the OGL was because they were promised it would last forever. There's no magical date where you can say, "Well, this perpetual license has been around long enough. Time to arbitrarily end it without any clause saying I can do so despite all the people still developing new products with it." There's no date where that isn't a epicly malicious bait and switch.
Citation needed regarding that 'massive value back.' And this agreement went into place over 20 years ago. How many of those who were 3rd party producers back then are even still around today?
Plus they are all still free to make content for any other game they wish. No one, including Hasbro via the OGL is obligating them to make anything whatsoever. What are their obligations under the 1.0? What is the consideration from their side?
Bait and switch... seriously?
You're showing a serious lack of understanding about how synergistic relationships work. Ryan Dancy explained at length on how the OGL allowed for the TTRPG industry to grow, connect, and provide value back to D&D - and given his role in developing 3.5, he's eminently more qualified than either of us to speak on the subject. Third parties create great value for DnD by making WotC's products more valuable and approachable to their customer base, and by growing and expanding said customer base.
And yes, a Bait and Switch is a type of scam where someone is presented with something that is apparently valuable and a 'good deal' (such as a license that lasts forever and the owner can't arbitrarily change the terms of), and then later swaps that deal for something less valuable (such as a license where they can change the terms or cancel it at will). They literally promised an unchanging forever license as an incentive to get people to develop for DnD (because otherwise, third parties would think it was a trap - they offered good terms to get them to take a chance), and now Hasbro/Wizards is trying to change the deal. Its a literal bait and switch.
Seriously, the story of how the OGL came about and how it worked and created value has been online for like two weeks now, as told by the people who were there. If you're ignorant of how it creates value at this point, you're willfully ignorant.
Yes. Photoshop does. Can you imagine if GIMP tried to start utilizing all of those though? People would go through the roof!
This comes closer to trying to revoke an adoption than breaking a contract. Because creators have spent years caring for this system. They have put their careers on hold, and spent a BILLION dollars last year lifting this from near oblivion before the OGL.
Yes. Photoshop does. Can you imagine if GIMP tried to start utilizing all of those though? People would go through the roof!
GIMP is open source, not the intellectual property of a for-profit corporation whose reputation could be at stake from misuse. Why would it have such clauses?
And the legal strategy starts coming together because this is not something limited to TTRPGs. Hasbro is making a direct attack on the very foundation of Open Licensing, and this has implications that will affect TRILLIONS of dollars in global commerce:
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
They're attacking Open Licensing by trying to revoke an Open License from the early days of Open Licensing, which is clearly not intended to be revocable by using a power not granted by the license.
If they can get away with it, who else can just use 'clever' wordplay to magic up the made up right to kill other licenses?
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement, don't go 'oh, yeah, that's what I meant' after the fact". You know, one of the cornerstones of contract law. WotC is not interested in going on the attack against 3PP's for being "too dark" or "too rainbow"; Hasbro literally already has lines that have gone in both directions. They want the option to, if a headline crops up along the lines of "Officially Licensed D&D Product Promotes Racial Inequality" (which would be a factually correct representation of what would have happened if Ernest Gygax had tried to pull his stunt with a 1.0a licensed product) respond with "we do not support this kind of content and have severed our ties with it", which they cannot do under 1.0a.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement, don't go 'oh, yeah, that's what I meant' after the fact". You know, one of the cornerstones of contract law. WotC is not interested in going on the attack against 3PP's for being "too dark" or "too rainbow"; Hasbro literally already has lines that have gone in both directions. They want the option to, if a headline crops up along the lines of "Officially Licensed D&D Product Promotes Racial Inequality" (which would be a factually correct representation of what would have happened if Ernest Gygax had tried to pull his stunt with a 1.0a licensed product) respond with "we do not support this kind of content and have severed our ties with it", which they cannot do under 1.0a.
This is a mess of a response. You are assuming you know what WoTC will do in the future based on what your "read" of them is rather than considering what they COULD do in the future. The OGL and their wannabe changes are business licenses. No one should enter into a business agreement with one side having fiat power to change most any aspect of the agreement and having fiat power to exclude you without any meaningful redress on your part, after you may have put hundreds or more work-hours and invested capital. What they want is simply too sweeping. Shame on anyone for suggesting someone should enter into business with a billion dollar corporation without any protections because they should just trust the billion dollar corporation to treat them right.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
Nope, don't put words in a person's mouth. For example, what I am saying is that WoTC should keep their word concerning the present OGL and continue it because they should keep their word. I am also saying that they should be legally compelled to do so but I'm not sure they will be because judges make up 'new law' through precedent and are overly influenced by big business. I am also saying that, as a customer, I reserve the right to not spend money supporting WoTC for whatever reason I so choose. I don't like what I hear about where they want to move in the future, rules changes dictated mainly for what will work best on programming a VTT, emphasis on subscriptions, and add-on charges (microtransactions). I want them to understand that there will be a cost to a change in policy that tries to pull more money out of my wallet for the same or less output of quality that I have been accustomed to from WoTC.
You own your own labor and your own products but if you make an agreement you should stick to it. They are guilty of breaking trust, short-term thinking, misunderstanding the rpg market, and clear distortions as to their motives and justifications.
You are, even though the lengths some feel the OGL goes, it is the equivalent.
And again, indentured servitude contracts were similar. Agreements that you have to provide your services to the contract holder as long as you live.
When there is no end to and no way out of a contract where the other party is not actually giving anything back in consideration, has no actual obligations to do anything for the first party, how is it 'breaking trust' to try to end that? Short term thinking? This is over twenty years after the OGL was put in place.
Yeah, of course the parties that have no obligations do not want it to end. Why would they?
You appear to be clueless about how the present OGL helped and helps WoTC.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement, don't go 'oh, yeah, that's what I meant' after the fact". You know, one of the cornerstones of contract law. WotC is not interested in going on the attack against 3PP's for being "too dark" or "too rainbow"; Hasbro literally already has lines that have gone in both directions. They want the option to, if a headline crops up along the lines of "Officially Licensed D&D Product Promotes Racial Inequality" (which would be a factually correct representation of what would have happened if Ernest Gygax had tried to pull his stunt with a 1.0a licensed product) respond with "we do not support this kind of content and have severed our ties with it", which they cannot do under 1.0a.
GPL 2 only used the term perpetual. GPL 2 NEVER had the term irrevocable. Software to this day is licensed under GPL2. This has a direct implication on that GPL as the OGL was based directly upon that GPL. This affects software in every smart phone, every smart television, every server on there internet. This affects the very foundation of cloud computing, This has direct implications on the very foundation of the internet. All Artificial Intelligence work currently being conducted would be directly affected by this move. All scientific work being conducted in super conductors, every bit of protein folding work being done across the internet, every design vector for drug companies in use today would be affected.
Do you truly have no understanding of the wider implications of Hasbro's move here? This will directly affect every company on the planet in one way or another and raise the ire of every company on the planet with a value of more than $1 billion in market cap.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
YouTube and Twitch are not in the content business, they are in the platform business. The creators are not also their competitors. The DDB forum is not a publishing/streaming platform.
These clauses don't just exist in platform licenses. Adobe Photoshop has a morality clause (6.9), an irrevocable licenseback clause (4.2), AND a terminate-for-any-reason clause (11.2) for ANYTHING (4.1) you create using their software. WotC's is peanuts in comparison.
I don't do business with Adobe Photoshop. Your point?
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
That isn't the definition of a Monopoly. Every company has a monopoly on their own Products. That's just a fact. That's expected. Sayign WotC is a Monopoly for D&D would say that D&D is a general commodity or service of the marketplace. It isn't. It is one system in the TTRP marketplace.
Monopoly: a company or group having exclusive control over a commodity or service.
WotC Doesnt' have a Monopoly on roleplaying games. They Own a particular set of settings and the D&D Trademark. They have every right to control how THAT trademark is used and who they give exclusive access to their IP. They own the "D&D 5e" rule books and their presentation of how to roll dice and build characters. There is no requirement for them to allow competition on their own brand and IPs. Now they have benefited from doing so, by growing the RP marketplace, but they are under no legal obligation to continue to assist their competes going forward.
So be clear what you are asking for, and what you are saying. WotC does not have a monopoly. Just like Google does not have a monopoly on Search, and Amazon is not a monopoly on online sales and shopping.
Dang, Wizards has "a monopoly" over their content and their work and the effort they put into making and developing the game and rules
If any other role-playing game said that they don't want other people to reproduce their content and their work without limitations, would everybody be hollering at them? No, of course not. But if the corporation is Wizards of the Coast and the role-playing game D&D, that somehow means Hasbro is monopolizing their own brand.
There is a clear double standard here. To all of the people who are viciously complaining about Wizards of the Coast wanting to control a bit of their own intellectual property, I would like to ask whether or not you would support, say, a small indie-RPG game designer who asked buyers not to reproduce their rules and sell supplements for the game?
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Nope, don't put words in a person's mouth. For example, what I am saying is that WoTC should keep their word concerning the present OGL and continue it because they should keep their word. I am also saying that they should be legally compelled to do so but I'm not sure they will be because judges make up 'new law' through precedent and are overly influenced by big business. I am also saying that, as a customer, I reserve the right to not spend money supporting WoTC for whatever reason I so choose. I don't like what I hear about where they want to move in the future, rules changes dictated mainly for what will work best on programming a VTT, emphasis on subscriptions, and add-on charges (microtransactions). I want them to understand that there will be a cost to a change in policy that tries to pull more money out of my wallet for the same or less output of quality that I have been accustomed to from WoTC.
You own your own labor and your own products but if you make an agreement you should stick to it. They are guilty of breaking trust, short-term thinking, misunderstanding the rpg market, and clear distortions as to their motives and justifications.
A telephone is only valuable if other people have telephones.
DnD is only valuable if people have other people to play DnD with.
Acting as though third parties aren't providing massive value back to DnD by creating content is completely missing the point, and just disregarding the role in the OGL of growing tabletop roleplaying.
You're also just disregarding that one of the reasons that people made content under the OGL was because they were promised it would last forever. There's no magical date where you can say, "Well, this perpetual license has been around long enough. Time to arbitrarily end it without any clause saying I can do so despite all the people still developing new products with it." There's no date where that isn't a epicly malicious bait and switch.
These clauses don't just exist in platform licenses. Adobe Photoshop has a morality clause (6.9), an irrevocable licenseback clause (4.2), AND a terminate-for-any-reason clause (11.2) for ANYTHING (4.1) you create using their software. WotC's is peanuts in comparison.
You're showing a serious lack of understanding about how synergistic relationships work. Ryan Dancy explained at length on how the OGL allowed for the TTRPG industry to grow, connect, and provide value back to D&D - and given his role in developing 3.5, he's eminently more qualified than either of us to speak on the subject. Third parties create great value for DnD by making WotC's products more valuable and approachable to their customer base, and by growing and expanding said customer base.
And yes, a Bait and Switch is a type of scam where someone is presented with something that is apparently valuable and a 'good deal' (such as a license that lasts forever and the owner can't arbitrarily change the terms of), and then later swaps that deal for something less valuable (such as a license where they can change the terms or cancel it at will). They literally promised an unchanging forever license as an incentive to get people to develop for DnD (because otherwise, third parties would think it was a trap - they offered good terms to get them to take a chance), and now Hasbro/Wizards is trying to change the deal. Its a literal bait and switch.
Seriously, the story of how the OGL came about and how it worked and created value has been online for like two weeks now, as told by the people who were there. If you're ignorant of how it creates value at this point, you're willfully ignorant.
Yes. Photoshop does. Can you imagine if GIMP tried to start utilizing all of those though? People would go through the roof!
This comes closer to trying to revoke an adoption than breaking a contract. Because creators have spent years caring for this system. They have put their careers on hold, and spent a BILLION dollars last year lifting this from near oblivion before the OGL.
GIMP is open source, not the intellectual property of a for-profit corporation whose reputation could be at stake from misuse. Why would it have such clauses?
And the legal strategy starts coming together because this is not something limited to TTRPGs. Hasbro is making a direct attack on the very foundation of Open Licensing, and this has implications that will affect TRILLIONS of dollars in global commerce:
https://youtu.be/0QzSROkX8_w
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
Not to mention, all those other open licenses that are supposedly at risk are actually irrevocable and clearly spell out what you can use them for.
They're attacking Open Licensing by trying to revoke an Open License from the early days of Open Licensing, which is clearly not intended to be revocable by using a power not granted by the license.
If they can get away with it, who else can just use 'clever' wordplay to magic up the made up right to kill other licenses?
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement, don't go 'oh, yeah, that's what I meant' after the fact". You know, one of the cornerstones of contract law. WotC is not interested in going on the attack against 3PP's for being "too dark" or "too rainbow"; Hasbro literally already has lines that have gone in both directions. They want the option to, if a headline crops up along the lines of "Officially Licensed D&D Product Promotes Racial Inequality" (which would be a factually correct representation of what would have happened if Ernest Gygax had tried to pull his stunt with a 1.0a licensed product) respond with "we do not support this kind of content and have severed our ties with it", which they cannot do under 1.0a.
This is a mess of a response. You are assuming you know what WoTC will do in the future based on what your "read" of them is rather than considering what they COULD do in the future. The OGL and their wannabe changes are business licenses. No one should enter into a business agreement with one side having fiat power to change most any aspect of the agreement and having fiat power to exclude you without any meaningful redress on your part, after you may have put hundreds or more work-hours and invested capital. What they want is simply too sweeping. Shame on anyone for suggesting someone should enter into business with a billion dollar corporation without any protections because they should just trust the billion dollar corporation to treat them right.
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
You appear to be clueless about how the present OGL helped and helps WoTC.
GPL 2 only used the term perpetual. GPL 2 NEVER had the term irrevocable. Software to this day is licensed under GPL2. This has a direct implication on that GPL as the OGL was based directly upon that GPL. This affects software in every smart phone, every smart television, every server on there internet. This affects the very foundation of cloud computing, This has direct implications on the very foundation of the internet. All Artificial Intelligence work currently being conducted would be directly affected by this move. All scientific work being conducted in super conductors, every bit of protein folding work being done across the internet, every design vector for drug companies in use today would be affected.
Do you truly have no understanding of the wider implications of Hasbro's move here? This will directly affect every company on the planet in one way or another and raise the ire of every company on the planet with a value of more than $1 billion in market cap.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I don't do business with Adobe Photoshop. Your point?
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...