None of which changes the fact that WotC describing it as a draft was done in a misleading manner, intended to portray it as a non-final document that was intended to be updated based on feedback.
I honestly do not care if WotC tries to apply a fig leaf. I do care if they outright lie but... it's not a lie.
Here's a relevant quote from Jan 13.
"That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
That statement is BS. While it may be "exact words" defensible as, "Well, the early drafts did say that" and "Technically, creators could give us feedback in the form of begging for a better, unique license." the spirit of that statement was straight up misdirection and gaslighting. Anyone paying attention knew it was BS, and if it isn't technically a lie, that's only the barest technicality.
In no way was their implying 1.1 was an early draft Honest.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Here's a relevant quote from Jan 13.
"That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized."
That statement is BS. While it may be "exact words" defensible as, "Well, the early drafts did say that" and "Technically, creators could give us feedback in the form of begging for a better, unique license." the spirit of that statement was straight up misdirection and gaslighting. Anyone paying attention knew it was BS, and if it isn't technically a lie, that's only the barest technicality.
In no way was their implying 1.1 was an early draft Honest.