They are a business with a brand identity, and they wish to protect it. When nazi town gets made, and the creators get to slap a D&D logo on it, WotC gets the blowback, too. “How could you allow your company to support such hate speech!?! Look, there’s an ampersand right there on the cover.” And wizards is supposed to say, “well, we don’t actually make it, we just let other people make it.” See how that goes.
Thus isn’t some government intrusion. We don’t have a constitutional right to use someone else’s product to build our own business. It’s a private company who owns and produces a product, and they should be able to say who else gets to use it.
The ampersand is not allowable in the OGL. The whole point is to give the generic non-copyright/trademark/watermark stuff in an open license, not a restrictive one. By its nature such mechanics were never illegal to use in the first place. The OGL was merely a way to say we won't sue you or block you in any way in building your own systems off it.
Companies make restrictive contracts all the time, but here they say its open, while wanting complete control over what they deem so and so terms that gives them total control to effectively revoke it. Its a cake and eat it too moment with openness and control. That is what is being called out.
Even if they were extremely benevolent with such clauses, who is to say they will keep being so when a new CEO comes in? They could suddenly shut down all works that criticism them while using labels of "hateful" content as their weapon without anyone to define what that means, and no court to examine it. In fact, that is exactly what is happening now with new folk trying to revoke the previous OGL so they have more control. Do you seriously trust these new folk to define morality with total control?
They could go the route of Nintendo, if not more so and have extreme control. Fine, but what's the point of the OGL then? That is why people are leaving.
1.2 has a permitted logo, with an ampersand. It’s practically the first thing in it. People aren’t going to parse it that closely to notice it says “creator product.”
1.2 has a permitted logo, with an ampersand. It’s practically the first thing in it. People aren’t going to parse it that closely to notice it says “creator product.”
Ah, definitely my mistake. For some reason I thought only the DMsGuild had association to use it, but then I remembered, new license. Derp. Guess its to intentionally mark other productions in association with them so they can feel the need to revoke it later on.
Yup, people are talking about potentionaly problematic 3PP content and saying that WotC need to protect themselves (which i think is nonsense anyway), but are missing this little gem "or engage in conduct that is...".
Exactly as you've said, You are considered Obscene in half of the world. Does that mean no OGL for you?
Do you have ANY examples of anything from WotC displaying prejudice against anyone trans? They are cleaning up wording in their products to eliminate prejudices.
Half the world may consider such aspects of reality obscene, but WotC seems clearly in the other half.
The world didn't have any evidence that JK Rowling was a giant anti trans bigot until just a couple of years ago, and look how that turned out. Besides, WotC can have leadership changes.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
I honestly think there is a bit of fearmongering on both sides of this argument.
I work for a school. My employment would be in jeopardy if I did any of the things most people would classify under 6f. I am sure most of the people here are the same, whether explicitly or implicitly.
I fully disagree with no time to make it right, and no recourse. I do not like those aspects of it. I am also concerned at the lack of oversight.
This clause is nothing new to e3ntertainment. There are morality clauses in many contracts. And in most, the only recourse is to sue, which is why I am concerned about the removal of that right. As written it can be easily abused. With some changes, one would have to decide if it is worth it.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
I think they should say that they didn't have anything to do with what others did. They are not responsible for game material produced by others that they didn't have a real business relationship with.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
Exactly. Beyond that, there’s a new edition coming out in a year or so. They want this squared away before then. And they have their VTT coming online, and want to get ahead of that. This is the opposite of “urgent.” This is a deliberative process likely to play out over several months (it is now, anyway, granted this wouldn’t have been true last week). It’s more than a year ahead of the content they are trying to protect. They are spending time asking for feedback. How is this urgent?
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
I'm not sure why you place trust in Hasbro and WoTC executives. This is business and business is about money. The only real leverage we have is our purchasing power. Their plan is to stop having their business be "under-monetized" which means they want you to spend more money on goods and services already present. Are you okay with that?
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
I think they should say that they didn't have anything to do with what others did. They are not responsible for game material produced by others that they didn't have a real business relationship with.
Again, it’s got their logo on it. And more than that, the buck stops somewhere. They can’t just go around blaming other people and saying it’s not their fault. They’re taking responsibility for how their product is used. Taking responsibility is a good thing.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
I'm not sure why you place trust in Hasbro and WoTC executives. This is business and business is about money. The only real leverage we have is our purchasing power. Their plan is to stop having their business be "under-monetized" which means they want you to spend more money on goods and services already present. Are you okay with that?
LOL
I don't trust corporations to do anything that doesn't make them more money. Having a group like NuTSR make EXTREMELY racist content would hamper their ability to make money. I expect ALL corporations to "plan to stop having their business to be under-monetized and want me to spend more money on goods and services already present." To expect anything else is naïve.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
No, what I'm saying is, they can legally block people from using language that associates their product with DnD. They did this back in the 00's for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They could also, rather than revoking someone's license, make the ability to use the Creator Badges contingent on meeting their morality standards. Then people could chose whether or not they wanted to jump through WotC/Hasbro's hoops to protect poor litle Timmy's ever so sentative eyes.
Sort of yeah. I agree with the statement that they should have no ability to affect 3rd party content in any way nor any power to shut anyone down ever. I don't care if someone puts out a module where you play Nazi's running concentration camps... do I find that offensive? Hell yeah. Would I buy it... hell no? Do I defend the right of someone to create such content... you bet your ass I will. I have the right to be offended, I have the right to not buy things or speak out against things, I don't have the right to block and outlaw someones right to create whatever content they want.
Its not Wizards of the Coasts job to govern 3rd party content, they can and should govern their own content, lead by example, create whatever version of D&D that fits their vision/ethics, but when it comes to the rest of the community and the content they create, that is up to us to govern ourselves and we do so with our wallets and our voice, not by outlawing things we don't agree with.
Such a module would be illegal under the hate speech laws of several actual countries, so WotC would likely not have to do a thing about them, themselves. However if that module was being advertised in a way associating it with WotC and their games, you feel that WotC should not be allowed to disavow themselves of any connection with it and tell them to stop making that association?
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
I think they should say that they didn't have anything to do with what others did. They are not responsible for game material produced by others that they didn't have a real business relationship with.
Again, it’s got their logo on it. And more than that, the buck stops somewhere. They can’t just go around blaming other people and saying it’s not their fault. They’re taking responsibility for how their product is used. Taking responsibility is a good thing.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
I'm not sure why you place trust in Hasbro and WoTC executives. This is business and business is about money. The only real leverage we have is our purchasing power. Their plan is to stop having their business be "under-monetized" which means they want you to spend more money on goods and services already present. Are you okay with that?
LOL
I don't trust corporations to do anything that doesn't make them more money. Having a group like NuTSR make EXTREMELY racist content would hamper their ability to make money. I expect ALL corporations to "plan to stop having their business to be under-monetized and want me to spend more money on goods and services already present." To expect anything else is naïve.
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
I'm not sure why you place trust in Hasbro and WoTC executives. This is business and business is about money. The only real leverage we have is our purchasing power. Their plan is to stop having their business be "under-monetized" which means they want you to spend more money on goods and services already present. Are you okay with that?
LOL
I don't trust corporations to do anything that doesn't make them more money. Having a group like NuTSR make EXTREMELY racist content would hamper their ability to make money. I expect ALL corporations to "plan to stop having their business to be under-monetized and want me to spend more money on goods and services already present." To expect anything else is naïve.
It's naïve? How about using nuanced thinking. Every corporation wants growth true. However, they need to take into account what is the most judicious approach to achieve growth. Now, start looking at it from a consumer's perspective rather than this strange Helsinki Syndrome thing with WoTC. The consumer should decide what a fair price for goods and services are and should resist actions by a large business to reduce competition and manipulate access in an attempt to increase profits. What is in a consumer's interest is what they see as a fair price for goods and services. It is not in a consumer's interest for WoTC to try to be the only game in town. It's in the interest of consumers to promote an open competitive environment. Ultimately, when WoTC has somewhat embraced that, they too have made more money. I am not worried about WoTC. If they can't come up with a way to protect themselves without these ridiculous shenanigans then I will take my gaming elsewhere. I think you have a misplaced attachment.
No, what I'm saying is, they can legally block people from using language that associates their product with DnD. They did this back in the 00's for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They could also, rather than revoking someone's license, make the ability to use the Creator Badges contingent on meeting their morality standards. Then people could chose whether or not they wanted to jump through WotC/Hasbro's hoops to protect poor litle Timmy's ever so sentative eyes.
So, you're suggesting some sort of graduated types of licenses? I guess, but that still leaves us with them making a judgeement call on whether or not someone gets the badge. eventually, a person needs to make the decision.
And the BoEF is an example of what they're trying to avoid. That's the whack-a-mole I was talking about. Though, I'd also agree it's the kind of thing that makes a good example of the problems of subjectivity. It's not offensive in the sense of containing or promoting bigotry. I remember reading it over back then, I didn't find it offensive, just kind of silly. But I'm sure there were others who were clutching their pearls over it. It's just something the management at the time didn't like. But I don't think their dislike was out of trying to shut down a competitor, they just didn't want their brand affiliated with such a product. That said, I do agree with those who say we should get some examples of the kind of content they consider unacceptable. one of those "including but not limited to" type of lists.
Also, as Golaryn and others have noted, this isn't really theoretical. If Ernie Gygax had been smart enough to publish his nonsense under OGL 1.0, It would be much harder for WotC to stop him doing it. They realized how lucky they are that he didn't, and are hoping to avoid that in the future.
It's naïve? How about using nuanced thinking. Every corporation wants growth true. However, they need to take into account what is the most judicious approach to achieve growth. Now, start looking at it from a consumer's perspective rather than this strange Helsinki Syndrome thing with WoTC. The consumer should decide what a fair price for goods and services are and should resist actions by a large business to reduce competition and manipulate access in an attempt to increase profits. What is in a consumer's interest is what they see as a fair price for goods and services. It is not in a consumer's interest for WoTC to try to be the only game in town. It's in the interest of consumers to promote an open competitive environment. Ultimately, when WoTC has somewhat embraced that, they too have made more money. I am not worried about WoTC. If they can't come up with a way to protect themselves without these ridiculous shenanigans then I will take my gaming elsewhere. I think you have a misplaced attachment.
What makes you think Wizards will be the only game? It never, ever has been. There are now, and always have been, a number of different games. Wizards gets to say who uses their stuff. But if you don't want toto play by their rules, you can just go make content for a different game. Or invent your own game. Heck, they're putting the basic mechanics under creative commons (not that they could really copyrightthose anyway.). So, use the d20 system and make you own game. What about not letting other people use their property is anti-consumer? I can't just put anything I want onto Apple's App store. They get to review it and decide if they like it.
Also, its Stockholm Syndrome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
1.2 has a permitted logo, with an ampersand. It’s practically the first thing in it. People aren’t going to parse it that closely to notice it says “creator product.”
Ah, definitely my mistake. For some reason I thought only the DMsGuild had association to use it, but then I remembered, new license. Derp. Guess its to intentionally mark other productions in association with them so they can feel the need to revoke it later on.
The world didn't have any evidence that JK Rowling was a giant anti trans bigot until just a couple of years ago, and look how that turned out. Besides, WotC can have leadership changes.
That's what trademark law is for.
I’m trying to understand you point. So, instead of saying “you can’t do this” WotC should have to wait until someone does and play whack-a-mole with lawsuits?
If OGL 1.0a didn't address this, and it is such an urgent need, how come it took more than 2 decades to get around to it?
I honestly think there is a bit of fearmongering on both sides of this argument.
I work for a school. My employment would be in jeopardy if I did any of the things most people would classify under 6f. I am sure most of the people here are the same, whether explicitly or implicitly.
I fully disagree with no time to make it right, and no recourse. I do not like those aspects of it. I am also concerned at the lack of oversight.
This clause is nothing new to e3ntertainment. There are morality clauses in many contracts. And in most, the only recourse is to sue, which is why I am concerned about the removal of that right. As written it can be easily abused. With some changes, one would have to decide if it is worth it.
This part is pretty easy really. NuTSR screwed the pooch by NOT using the OGL to do their dirty work. There is now an obvious hole that WotC wishes to plug before some one smarter does the deed.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I think they should say that they didn't have anything to do with what others did. They are not responsible for game material produced by others that they didn't have a real business relationship with.
It's not an urgent need. It's a distraction and a spurious justification for them to achieve their goals.
You are certainly allowed to look at it that way, but I disagree.
Edit: NuTSR's attempted shenanigans coupled with the up coming release of OneDnD, now is the time to make any updates of this nature.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Exactly.
Beyond that, there’s a new edition coming out in a year or so. They want this squared away before then. And they have their VTT coming online, and want to get ahead of that. This is the opposite of “urgent.” This is a deliberative process likely to play out over several months (it is now, anyway, granted this wouldn’t have been true last week). It’s more than a year ahead of the content they are trying to protect. They are spending time asking for feedback. How is this urgent?
I'm not sure why you place trust in Hasbro and WoTC executives. This is business and business is about money. The only real leverage we have is our purchasing power. Their plan is to stop having their business be "under-monetized" which means they want you to spend more money on goods and services already present. Are you okay with that?
Again, it’s got their logo on it.
And more than that, the buck stops somewhere. They can’t just go around blaming other people and saying it’s not their fault. They’re taking responsibility for how their product is used. Taking responsibility is a good thing.
LOL
I don't trust corporations to do anything that doesn't make them more money. Having a group like NuTSR make EXTREMELY racist content would hamper their ability to make money. I expect ALL corporations to "plan to stop having their business to be under-monetized and want me to spend more money on goods and services already present." To expect anything else is naïve.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
No, what I'm saying is, they can legally block people from using language that associates their product with DnD. They did this back in the 00's for the Book of Erotic Fantasy. They could also, rather than revoking someone's license, make the ability to use the Creator Badges contingent on meeting their morality standards. Then people could chose whether or not they wanted to jump through WotC/Hasbro's hoops to protect poor litle Timmy's ever so sentative eyes.
Which OGL are you talking about?
1.2.
The one that allows creators to slap an ampersand on the product.
It's naïve? How about using nuanced thinking. Every corporation wants growth true. However, they need to take into account what is the most judicious approach to achieve growth. Now, start looking at it from a consumer's perspective rather than this strange Helsinki Syndrome thing with WoTC. The consumer should decide what a fair price for goods and services are and should resist actions by a large business to reduce competition and manipulate access in an attempt to increase profits. What is in a consumer's interest is what they see as a fair price for goods and services. It is not in a consumer's interest for WoTC to try to be the only game in town. It's in the interest of consumers to promote an open competitive environment. Ultimately, when WoTC has somewhat embraced that, they too have made more money. I am not worried about WoTC. If they can't come up with a way to protect themselves without these ridiculous shenanigans then I will take my gaming elsewhere. I think you have a misplaced attachment.
So, you're suggesting some sort of graduated types of licenses? I guess, but that still leaves us with them making a judgeement call on whether or not someone gets the badge. eventually, a person needs to make the decision.
And the BoEF is an example of what they're trying to avoid. That's the whack-a-mole I was talking about. Though, I'd also agree it's the kind of thing that makes a good example of the problems of subjectivity. It's not offensive in the sense of containing or promoting bigotry. I remember reading it over back then, I didn't find it offensive, just kind of silly. But I'm sure there were others who were clutching their pearls over it. It's just something the management at the time didn't like. But I don't think their dislike was out of trying to shut down a competitor, they just didn't want their brand affiliated with such a product. That said, I do agree with those who say we should get some examples of the kind of content they consider unacceptable. one of those "including but not limited to" type of lists.
Also, as Golaryn and others have noted, this isn't really theoretical. If Ernie Gygax had been smart enough to publish his nonsense under OGL 1.0, It would be much harder for WotC to stop him doing it. They realized how lucky they are that he didn't, and are hoping to avoid that in the future.
What makes you think Wizards will be the only game? It never, ever has been. There are now, and always have been, a number of different games. Wizards gets to say who uses their stuff. But if you don't want toto play by their rules, you can just go make content for a different game. Or invent your own game. Heck, they're putting the basic mechanics under creative commons (not that they could really copyrightthose anyway.). So, use the d20 system and make you own game. What about not letting other people use their property is anti-consumer? I can't just put anything I want onto Apple's App store. They get to review it and decide if they like it.
Also, its Stockholm Syndrome.