Because I have seen some people in threads claiming the leaked CGL 1.1 doesn't actually give them ownership of your work I wanted to start a thread where the specific section is displayed in all its evil glory for everyone to see. This is section 10 (Roman numeral X) from the leaked CGL 1.1 which can be found here: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

I am not a lawyer, but I mean, it's pretty clear. I added the Bolding, Italics, and Red font, the rest is WotC lawyer speak for "Yoink!"

X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can’t and won’t cancel products out of fear that they’d be seen as “similar to” Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.
B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.

Not only do they have the right to steal your stuff; elsewhere in the document you agree to give up your right to do anything about it.  And any dispute will be handled in a jurisdiction of their choice, with a judge and no jury; because heaven forbid the people be allowed to hold their benevolent corporate overlords to account...  Oh; and you have to pay their legal fees, not because you were court-ordered to, but because you also agreed to do taht by signing this deal.  Oh; and you aren't allowed to enter into class-action suits either.

AND; they can take your license away at any time for any reason, or for no reason, while retaining YOUR work...  Fairly sure that would be called theft in any other circumstance.

It says you, the creator, own the content, but WotC is granted a license.  And an important adjective modifying that license is nonexclusive.  

In other words, you are technically incorrect, by "technical" I mean the words you're trying to use to agitate your reader are not in agreement with the words used in the license that battlezoo has posted.  

I mean you bold and font highlight all the language; but you're really not reading it, just using the bolding and highlighting to scream something that the language is actually not saying.

One thing's for sure, the entire #OpenDnD movement should never, ever include infernal contracts in their game.  They don't have the reading ability to do so, preferring demonrage in favor of comprehension.  It's been an abysmal few days among the community.

I mean folks, there's been folks versed in the law and contracts floating around these boards, but even if you don't heed them, please pay attention to the basic parts of speech and grammar.  It's really elementary.

To be honest, it’s the “irrevocable,” “sub-licensable,” and “royalty free” parts I have a problem with.

Man it seems like maybe You didn't really read it either, and have assumed some things about Me.

It says you, the creator, own the content, but WotC is granted a license.  And an important adjective modifying that license is nonexclusive.  

I never said that you don't retain ownership of your content. In fact I have stated in other threads that you do retain your ownership.

And if you read what it says about the license they grants themselves they also use the words "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free" which means that the license they give themselves they can keep and use FOR-EVAR!!! (that's a legal term).

In the case of nonexclusive they just mean that the licence they give themselves to your work doesn't stop you from potentially licensing it to other people as well.

Over here in lawyer land “you own the new and original content you create” means the same thing it means over in laypeople land - when you create content, you retain ownership rights and you retain the right to enforce.

I agree the red part is probably scary in laypeople land - but we in lawyer land tend to roll our eyes at folks freaking out about it. This exact language shows up in hundreds of different places - it’s in a huge percentage of those agreements folks click yes to without actually reading (unless they’re suddenly interested, in which case their lack of knowledge about prevalence shows, as they assume it must be a novel term to whatever it is they’re presently reading).

Here’s the thing - it doesn’t exist to allow a company to steal your content without permission, it exists to prevent copyright trolls from shutting down operations.  In fact, these terms are even more clearly written for laypeople than most - the alleged terms specifically spell out why that language is in there, preventing someone with “similar to” WotC’s planned publications from suing Wizards and seeking to delay or prevent the release of product.

All of which makes sense given how large third-party content has grown.  It’s the same basic thing as the “bang on a keyboard randomly for an infinite amount of time and you’ll eventually randomly produce the entire works of Shakespeare” thought experiment - you have a huge number of creators producing their own content, eventually someone is going to make something that Wizards also thinks up completely independently.  

That person might then try and claim Wizards ripped them off (even if Wizards came up with the idea on their own) and would point to things like “well, this was hosted on populr places so they could have known about it” to strengthen their argument (even if Wizards did not, in fact, have actual knowledge).  Considering judges have the power to enjoin the release of product pending the outcome of litigation - basically holding up publication while things get worked out - that is a huge problem for both Wizards and players that this language seeks to avoid.

Granted, none of that - including the fact that all of the above is explicitly spelled out in the very section itself - is going to change the minds of folks who would rather fear-monger than accept that there is an innocent purpose to the legalese.  Heck, there’s still people complaining about D&D Beyond’s terms and conditions having similar language, while ignoring that (a) Wizards’ language was even more generous to creators than Fandoms’ was and (b) this site legally could not function without this language in the terms and conditions. 

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

Man it seems like maybe You didn't really read it either, and have assumed some things about Me.

It says you, the creator, own the content, but WotC is granted a license.  And an important adjective modifying that license is nonexclusive.  

I never said that you don't retain ownership of your content. In fact I have stated in other threads that you do retain your ownership.

And if you read what it says about the license they grants themselves they also use the words "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free" which means that the license they give themselves they can keep and use FOR-EVAR!!! (that's a legal term).

In the case of nonexclusive they just mean that the licence they give themselves to your work doesn't stop you from potentially licensing it to other people as well.

 How much would you like to bet that if you tried to licence your work to oh say... a competitor of WotC; that would be one of those "any reasons" to revoke your use of the licence...   Just saying: it doesn't matter if you "won" it if someone else determines any and all ways in which you can use it.

Quote from IamSposta >>

To be honest, it’s the “irrevocable,” “sub-licensable,” and “royalty free” parts I have a problem with.

But that's not what OctoberGeek claimed.  Basically, the problem with this "movement" is so many folks feel they have something to "say" when they really can't articulate what's really going on without making reality seem like there's a sky beam devastating the planet and the gaming community are the Avengers.  People don't seem to even understand how actually unstable and within rumor-ville the "facts" of their creed lay.  I'm going to copy something I wrote in another thread, partially because it's salient to the blind bats chewing an elephant going on here, but also it also includes the funniest thing I've written on this board in a while.  It deals with the reality of what Cordega thinks they know, the so called "Kickstarter" validation, Griffons saddlebags, and the "legal analysis" being provided outside of those advocating to really wait and see because yes contract negotiations start with drafts (that's why they're negotiations):

Neither of these takes of the Griffons Saddlebag or Kickstarter statements are wholly accurate, but rather reflecting of a lot of Twitter interpretation of those two tweets.

To have access to this 1.1 OGL proposal you had to participate in an NDA.  Griffons Saddlebag was the loudest in my feeds in proclaiming they would never sign an NDA.  If you know the 3rd Party Press world well enough, you know there are a number of folks through whom GS may have gotten some wind or corroboration that what Cordega received reflected what they were shown.  To my knowledge no one who's speaking with any "authority" on the 1.1 document has actually seen the document as part of actual negotiations with WotC.  (more on "but the legal analysis" in a sec). This isn't GS offering anything more to the discussion based on direct knowledge or experience but "yeah, this is what I'm hearing too and it sucks!"

The Kickstarter Games Chief's tweet did not confirm the royalty rates Codega asserted.  KS did say they had negotiations with WotC, and talked them down and were still actively discussing a number of things (more ammo to the OGL being a work in progress than set in stone case).  And they didn't do this to help out or support Codega, they did this defensively to address specifically Codega's use of the word "kickbacks" in their(Cordega's) Twitter thread hyping their article in re Kickstarter's benefit in this arrangement.  It was sloppy word choice they(Cordega) l believe used because to them the word play sounded cool, not realizing what kickbacks actually implied ... Cordega later half apologizes admitting the word choice could be interpreted unkindly ... it definitely wasn't a kind word choice in its composition.  Kickbacks implies a degree of criminality that just isn't warranted and any company will clap back at the allegation.  Cordega called them party to an unethical scheme, whether Cordega intended to or not. KS statement tells us "not at all, in fact we're trying to make some progress on this in way that will benefit our community."  

As for the "legal analysis". Cordega's assertion is "I had attorneys look at this", the ones providing interpretation in her article I guarantee you are not Gizmodo's attorneys at all.  I'm sure Gizmodo's attorneys looked at it to make sure what if any legal trouble Gizmodo could get into reporting on "leaked" info and its probably their guidance why Gizmodo is simply not disseminating the 1.1 document for all to see.  Counsel for Gizmodo cares about the operation of Gizmodo, not helping a reporter understand what something means (if you know Gizmodo's history going back to Gawker and what Peter Thiel did to them via Hulk Hogan, you can understand their caution, though that caution is very normative in media these days anyway because the whole journalism sector saw what happened).  Providing public comment on a confidential document between consenting business parties under an NDA, as I understand it, is a between grey to no go zone on a legal professional ethics front (at least there are other people out there in TTRPG space with legal training, who frankly sound more lawyerly - I've worked with attorneys in capacities ranging from criminal justice to wealth management to business and nonprofit development (domestic and international) - and the ones saying "everyone take a breath and wait and see what's real" are the ones who sound like the "better lawyers" than the ones going full on Giuliani in front of four seasons landscaping telling us all the sky is on fire.  There's a type of lawyer on Twitter and elsewhere in social media who tries to reach status by writing "lawsplainers" of varying quality; and there are also some very accomplished lawyers who are generous with their knowledge and experience helping inform public perspective on legal matters that have the public's attention.  I honestly can't tell you what caliber is producing these interpretations ... but I've never regretted following a "let's take a breath and see what's actually going on" advisement.

One last thing that's sorta funny.  This weekend this box has been making its rounds to various D&D influencers.  Has a cool personalized DM's screen, a giant plush d10 throw pillow sort of thing.  Some folks think these boxes are making the round because WotC thinks winning the "community war" is about simply corralling the people who celebrate D&D and help WotC celebrate D&D through its official channels and OGL independent product producers be damned.  That's a compelling story, it sets up struggle between good and evil with clearly cast villains and betrayers and I guess everyone who works 3rd party is the hero or something.  Of course, the box is also going to its critics.  Cordega got one.  Maybe it was in fact planned to be sent out before the latest story and was more in appreciation of their past work "clearing the air of the misunderstanding" and running with WotC "no, we're all good with the OGL, wait till you see it" story from a few years back.  Maybe WotC thinks they can play Cordega, or maylbe Cordega got played.  The corroboration I've seen seem to be more recycling the "facts" of Cordega's piece with no one having the stones to say "Yes, I've seen the OGL directly sent me by WotC."  We just don't live in a reality where anyone with any degree of professional accomplishment is that bold.  We're just not going to see Matt Mercer land a longboat in Providence and lead the charge into Hasbro HQ wielding a home-brewed +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger  like the best credit card commercials ever made (remember the ones with the Viking Hoards?) while Colville covers his flank with the minigun from Predator (though that scene belongs in the best fanfic ever written).  News dropped on a Thursday, biz side of WotC probably took note of it on a Friday.  Folks here and elsewhere got worked up over the weekend, but in WotC's view this is a take up on Monday thing.  I imagine we'll hear something later on this week, maybe definitive maybe not.  Do I have concerns for people whose livelihoods may be on the line?  Yes, but I don't need to douse myself with gasoline waiting for whichever keystroke will light me up to hold that feeling.  It's ok to be concerned about what's going on and admitting to not really knowing what's going on and give time for the truth to come out.  Sometimes that's the best form of caring.

 

I mean, I get it, everyone in this community privileges imagination, it's the nature of the hobby; but everyone's decisive assertions are so premature it's really histrionic.

I agree the red part is probably scary in laypeople land - but we in lawyer land tend to roll our eyes at folks freaking out about it. This exact language shows up in hundreds of different places - it’s in a huge percentage of those agreements folks click yes to without actually reading (unless they’re suddenly interested, in which case their lack of knowledge about prevalence shows, as they assume it must be a novel term to whatever it is they’re presently reading).

Yes, I understand. The issue is that even if we realistically accept that WotC isn't planning to "steal" your content, they could

Maybe you create an amazing new Monster Manual. One that everyone loves because it's so awesome. I'm not saying WotC would steal it, I'm saying that could look at that and say "Hmmm... we need a new MM, and this one is already done for us, and people seem to love it. Let's republish it as an official D&D book."

They could do that, and they could do it without acknowledging you at all.

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

I agree the red part is probably scary in laypeople land - but we in lawyer land tend to roll our eyes at folks freaking out about it. This exact language shows up in hundreds of different places - it’s in a huge percentage of those agreements folks click yes to without actually reading (unless they’re suddenly interested, in which case their lack of knowledge about prevalence shows, as they assume it must be a novel term to whatever it is they’re presently reading).

Yes, I understand. The issue is that even if we realistically accept that WotC isn't planning to "steal" your content, they could

Maybe you create an amazing new Monster Manual. One that everyone loves because it's so awesome. I'm not saying WotC would steal it, I'm saying that could look at that and say "Hmmm... we need a new MM, and this one is already done for us, and people seem to love it. Let's republish it as an official D&D book."

They could do that, and they could do it without acknowledging you at all.

 
If something I wrote got republished as an official WotC product I would be ecstatic… provided they put my name on the thing and cut me off a slice of the cheddar.

I'm going to copy something I wrote in another thread, partially because it's salient to the blind bats chewing an elephant going on here, but also it also includes the funniest thing I've written on this board in a while.

You must play Bards a lot because you like to use cutting words against others (nice ad hominem) but you also appear quite full of yourself. I also find it strange how angry you are about people being worried about this that you need to write entire screeds to excoriate your keyboard opponents.

You don't seem to address the fact that my post was correct, and your rebuttal was not.

WotC give themselves a "perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free" license to reuse your work (that you still own) and that the "non-exclusive" line only means that you can try to sell/post your work somewhere else as well.

Or have you some other very verbose way of demonstrating that what I have said is untrue?

If something I wrote got republished as an official WotC product I would be ecstatic… provided they put my name on the thing and cut me off a slice of the cheddar.

 Yes, ANY of us would, but this license says that they don't have to do that. They can claim all the accolades for themselves, and you can't  take them to court for it.

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

I agree the red part is probably scary in laypeople land - but we in lawyer land tend to roll our eyes at folks freaking out about it. This exact language shows up in hundreds of different places - it’s in a huge percentage of those agreements folks click yes to without actually reading (unless they’re suddenly interested, in which case their lack of knowledge about prevalence shows, as they assume it must be a novel term to whatever it is they’re presently reading).

Yes, I understand. The issue is that even if we realistically accept that WotC isn't planning to "steal" your content, they could

Maybe you create an amazing new Monster Manual. One that everyone loves because it's so awesome. I'm not saying WotC would steal it, I'm saying that could look at that and say "Hmmm... we need a new MM, and this one is already done for us, and people seem to love it. Let's republish it as an official D&D book."

They could do that, and they could do it without acknowledging you at all.

 
Or as we would say in lawyer land: Objection, speculation.

It isn’t great legalese - it looks scary to laypeople who are generally inclined to see something sinister in corporate contracts.  What they don’t see is how scared the corporations are of laypeople.  A single person shutting down production on a book costs Wizards millions of dollars per day - for all the “the corporations have bottomless money to spend on attorneys arguments” out there, the current way the system is set up and the possibility of injunctions gives an incredible amount of power to content creators.  That’s how one of my IP professors made tens of millions of dollars before moving to teaching - find something similar to a product he knew a big company was going to release, get the owner of that similar product to file a lawsuit, ask for a temporary injunction, then tell the big company “I’ll release you from this if you pay me and my client a million—paying me off will still be cheaper than not having your product released.”

So, while yes, the language could allow Wizards to take your stuff, they almost certainly are not - in the history of corporate greed, these terms are almost never used in that manner as it would be a PR disaster that would send a large house of cards tumbling down.  

Now, do I wish that the language could be different so I could stop having this exact conversation over and over and over again? Yes.  But that’s going to require a fundamental overhaul of some of our IP law.  Considering this kind of IP trolling has been known about for decades and has not been fixed, I am not holding my breath on any changes. 

Quote from MidnightPlat >>

Quote from IamSposta >>

To be honest, it’s the “irrevocable,” “sub-licensable,” and “royalty free” parts I have a problem with.

 

But that's not what OctoberGeek claimed.  Basically, the problem with this "movement" is so many folks feel they have something to "say" when they really can't articulate what's really going on without making reality seem like there's a sky beam devastating the planet and the gaming community are the Avengers.  People don't seem to even understand how actually unstable and within rumor-ville the "facts" of their creed lay.  I'm going to copy something I wrote in another thread, partially because it's salient to the blind bats chewing an elephant going on here, but also it also includes the funniest thing I've written on this board in a while.  It deals with the reality of what Cordega thinks they know, the so called "Kickstarter" validation, Griffons saddlebags, and the "legal analysis" being provided outside of those advocating to really wait and see because yes contract negotiations start with drafts (that's why they're negotiations):

Neither of these takes of the Griffons Saddlebag or Kickstarter statements are wholly accurate, but rather reflecting of a lot of Twitter interpretation of those two tweets.

To have access to this 1.1 OGL proposal you had to participate in an NDA.  Griffons Saddlebag was the loudest in my feeds in proclaiming they would never sign an NDA.  If you know the 3rd Party Press world well enough, you know there are a number of folks through whom GS may have gotten some wind or corroboration that what Cordega received reflected what they were shown.  To my knowledge no one who's speaking with any "authority" on the 1.1 document has actually seen the document as part of actual negotiations with WotC.  (more on "but the legal analysis" in a sec). This isn't GS offering anything more to the discussion based on direct knowledge or experience but "yeah, this is what I'm hearing too and it sucks!"

The Kickstarter Games Chief's tweet did not confirm the royalty rates Codega asserted.  KS did say they had negotiations with WotC, and talked them down and were still actively discussing a number of things (more ammo to the OGL being a work in progress than set in stone case).  And they didn't do this to help out or support Codega, they did this defensively to address specifically Codega's use of the word "kickbacks" in their(Cordega's) Twitter thread hyping their article in re Kickstarter's benefit in this arrangement.  It was sloppy word choice they(Cordega) l believe used because to them the word play sounded cool, not realizing what kickbacks actually implied ... Cordega later half apologizes admitting the word choice could be interpreted unkindly ... it definitely wasn't a kind word choice in its composition.  Kickbacks implies a degree of criminality that just isn't warranted and any company will clap back at the allegation.  Cordega called them party to an unethical scheme, whether Cordega intended to or not. KS statement tells us "not at all, in fact we're trying to make some progress on this in way that will benefit our community."  

As for the "legal analysis". Cordega's assertion is "I had attorneys look at this", the ones providing interpretation in her article I guarantee you are not Gizmodo's attorneys at all.  I'm sure Gizmodo's attorneys looked at it to make sure what if any legal trouble Gizmodo could get into reporting on "leaked" info and its probably their guidance why Gizmodo is simply not disseminating the 1.1 document for all to see.  Counsel for Gizmodo cares about the operation of Gizmodo, not helping a reporter understand what something means (if you know Gizmodo's history going back to Gawker and what Peter Thiel did to them via Hulk Hogan, you can understand their caution, though that caution is very normative in media these days anyway because the whole journalism sector saw what happened).  Providing public comment on a confidential document between consenting business parties under an NDA, as I understand it, is a between grey to no go zone on a legal professional ethics front (at least there are other people out there in TTRPG space with legal training, who frankly sound more lawyerly - I've worked with attorneys in capacities ranging from criminal justice to wealth management to business and nonprofit development (domestic and international) - and the ones saying "everyone take a breath and wait and see what's real" are the ones who sound like the "better lawyers" than the ones going full on Giuliani in front of four seasons landscaping telling us all the sky is on fire.  There's a type of lawyer on Twitter and elsewhere in social media who tries to reach status by writing "lawsplainers" of varying quality; and there are also some very accomplished lawyers who are generous with their knowledge and experience helping inform public perspective on legal matters that have the public's attention.  I honestly can't tell you what caliber is producing these interpretations ... but I've never regretted following a "let's take a breath and see what's actually going on" advisement.

One last thing that's sorta funny.  This weekend this box has been making its rounds to various D&D influencers.  Has a cool personalized DM's screen, a giant plush d10 throw pillow sort of thing.  Some folks think these boxes are making the round because WotC thinks winning the "community war" is about simply corralling the people who celebrate D&D and help WotC celebrate D&D through its official channels and OGL independent product producers be damned.  That's a compelling story, it sets up struggle between good and evil with clearly cast villains and betrayers and I guess everyone who works 3rd party is the hero or something.  Of course, the box is also going to its critics.  Cordega got one.  Maybe it was in fact planned to be sent out before the latest story and was more in appreciation of their past work "clearing the air of the misunderstanding" and running with WotC "no, we're all good with the OGL, wait till you see it" story from a few years back.  Maybe WotC thinks they can play Cordega, or maylbe Cordega got played.  The corroboration I've seen seem to be more recycling the "facts" of Cordega's piece with no one having the stones to say "Yes, I've seen the OGL directly sent me by WotC."  We just don't live in a reality where anyone with any degree of professional accomplishment is that bold.  We're just not going to see Matt Mercer land a longboat in Providence and lead the charge into Hasbro HQ wielding a home-brewed +5 Vorpal Holy Avenger  like the best credit card commercials ever made (remember the ones with the Viking Hoards?) while Colville covers his flank with the minigun from Predator (though that scene belongs in the best fanfic ever written).  News dropped on a Thursday, biz side of WotC probably took note of it on a Friday.  Folks here and elsewhere got worked up over the weekend, but in WotC's view this is a take up on Monday thing.  I imagine we'll hear something later on this week, maybe definitive maybe not.  Do I have concerns for people whose livelihoods may be on the line?  Yes, but I don't need to douse myself with gasoline waiting for whichever keystroke will light me up to hold that feeling.  It's ok to be concerned about what's going on and admitting to not really knowing what's going on and give time for the truth to come out.  Sometimes that's the best form of caring.

I mean, I get it, everyone in this community privileges imagination, it's the nature of the hobby; but everyone's decisive assertions are so premature it's really histrionic.

 
I’m frankly less concerned with what OctoberGeek said in some other post that I didn’t quote. I was only voicing my own opinion on things.

I ain’t gonna lie, my eyes started to glaze over reading your long post, I got, like, no sleep last night. Can you perhaps point out the highlights and the funny part for me?

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

I agree the red part is probably scary in laypeople land - but we in lawyer land tend to roll our eyes at folks freaking out about it. This exact language shows up in hundreds of different places - it’s in a huge percentage of those agreements folks click yes to without actually reading (unless they’re suddenly interested, in which case their lack of knowledge about prevalence shows, as they assume it must be a novel term to whatever it is they’re presently reading).

Yes, I understand. The issue is that even if we realistically accept that WotC isn't planning to "steal" your content, they could

Maybe you create an amazing new Monster Manual. One that everyone loves because it's so awesome. I'm not saying WotC would steal it, I'm saying that could look at that and say "Hmmm... we need a new MM, and this one is already done for us, and people seem to love it. Let's republish it as an official D&D book."

They could do that, and they could do it without acknowledging you at all.

 
Or as we would say in lawyer land: Objection, speculation.

It isn’t great legalese - it looks scary to laypeople who are generally inclined to see something sinister in corporate contracts.  What they don’t see is how scared the corporations are of laypeople.  A single person shutting down production on a book costs Wizards millions of dollars per day - for all the “the corporations have bottomless money to spend on attorneys arguments” out there, the current way the system is set up and the possibility of injunctions gives an incredible amount of power to content creators.  That’s how one of my IP professors made tens of millions of dollars before moving to teaching - find something similar to a product he knew a big company was going to release, get the owner of that similar product to file a lawsuit, ask for a temporary injunction, then tell the big company “I’ll release you from this if you pay me and my client a million—paying me off will still be cheaper than not having your product released.”

So, while yes, the language could allow Wizards to take your stuff, they almost certainly are not - in the history of corporate greed, these terms are almost never used in that manner as it would be a PR disaster that would send a large house of cards tumbling down.  

Now, do I wish that the language could be different so I could stop having this exact conversation over and over and over again? Yes.  But that’s going to require a fundamental overhaul of some of our IP law.  Considering this kind of IP trolling has been known about for decades and has not been fixed, I am not holding my breath on any changes. 

 I'm not sure you and I are actually disagreeing. I accept that the existence of the clause does not mean that WotC will steal anything, only that they could use your work without any consideration to you. That's it. That's the concern.

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

If something I wrote got republished as an official WotC product I would be ecstatic… provided they put my name on the thing and cut me off a slice of the cheddar.

 Yes, ANY of us would, but this license says that they don't have to do that. They can claim all the accolades for themselves, and you can't  take them to court for it.

 
Yes, I can read. (You don’t need to explain it to me.) That’s why I wrote this earlier:

Quote from IamSposta >>

To be honest, it’s the “irrevocable,” “sub-licensable,” and “royalty free” parts I have a problem with.

Quote from Caerwyn_Glyndwr >>

So, while yes, the language could allow Wizards to take your stuff, they almost certainly are not - in the history of corporate greed, these terms are almost never used in that manner as it would be a PR disaster that would send a large house of cards tumbling down. 

 Oh yes; because the current state of WOTC PR is such a well maintained and stable looking pile of flaming wreckage right now...  If they were trying to avoid bad PR then whomsoever's job that is should be updating their resume furiously about now.

Quote from IamSposta >>

Quote from OctoberGeek >>

If something I wrote got republished as an official WotC product I would be ecstatic… provided they put my name on the thing and cut me off a slice of the cheddar.

 Yes, ANY of us would, but this license says that they don't have to do that. They can claim all the accolades for themselves, and you can't  take them to court for it.

 
Yes, I can read. (You don’t need to explain it to me.) That’s why I wrote this earlier:

Quote from IamSposta >>

To be honest, it’s the “irrevocable,” “sub-licensable,” and “royalty free” parts I have a problem with.

 Does this mean I can apply for membership in the FLC?