I think it is worthwhile to read these opinions from actual 3PP creators. Generally, I think this one says "step in the right direction, more action needed" which is where I think the reasonable head in the forums here are at also.
But, one caveat is, much like WotC, 3PPs are companies (albeit small ones). Anything from their point of view will be subject to their own desires and their own benefit, just like WotC. That isn't to say their opinions aren't valuable, useful, or needed, but that they should be looked at with a critical eye, and not accepted outright.
Personally, I don't have an issue with most of their comments, as they touch on many that have been discussed by level heads here, but I disagree with them on the deauthorization of 1.0a...that document is absolutely written in their favor, and I understand their wanting it to remain, but it is also not up to the standards of modern day in terms of protecting the integrity of the IP and in addressing new tech/means of playing (which include VTTs). Given that it cannot be amended in any way that could enforce these items, it needs to be replaced.
They dropped knowledge and brought the receipts. I was just thinking about how I was going to structure my survey responses. This is going to make that a lot easier.
They raise some good points in the VTT Policy portion. Some clarity there would be helpful.
I agree that the apparent intent ("we want to allow VTTs, but not video games") does not really line up with the policy ("your VTT can have features, but not particularly good or modern ones.")
WotC's new VTT has the exact feature they are spelling out other VTTs aren't allowed to use. Its clearly to control the market. But by all means, fear the mountain of explicit content that has been popularized, we must "de-authorize" the foul document OGL 1.0a!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The Foundry VTT team have issued their response to the proposed OGL 1.2, which contains some interesting analysis:
https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/
This is a pretty stellar deconstruction of the issues with 1.2, and the absurdities of trying to rewrite the past of 1.0a and it's intent.
I think it is worthwhile to read these opinions from actual 3PP creators. Generally, I think this one says "step in the right direction, more action needed" which is where I think the reasonable head in the forums here are at also.
But, one caveat is, much like WotC, 3PPs are companies (albeit small ones). Anything from their point of view will be subject to their own desires and their own benefit, just like WotC. That isn't to say their opinions aren't valuable, useful, or needed, but that they should be looked at with a critical eye, and not accepted outright.
Personally, I don't have an issue with most of their comments, as they touch on many that have been discussed by level heads here, but I disagree with them on the deauthorization of 1.0a...that document is absolutely written in their favor, and I understand their wanting it to remain, but it is also not up to the standards of modern day in terms of protecting the integrity of the IP and in addressing new tech/means of playing (which include VTTs). Given that it cannot be amended in any way that could enforce these items, it needs to be replaced.
They dropped knowledge and brought the receipts. I was just thinking about how I was going to structure my survey responses. This is going to make that a lot easier.
They raise some good points in the VTT Policy portion. Some clarity there would be helpful.
I agree that the apparent intent ("we want to allow VTTs, but not video games") does not really line up with the policy ("your VTT can have features, but not particularly good or modern ones.")
WotC's new VTT has the exact feature they are spelling out other VTTs aren't allowed to use. Its clearly to control the market. But by all means, fear the mountain of explicit content that has been popularized, we must "de-authorize" the foul document OGL 1.0a!