Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
Because they are greedy, slimy creatures of the night that only want to push out the OGL 1.2 or whatever they are calling it now. At this point, we should demand nothing less that the signing of the ORC. They have proven they cannot be trusted and they will take a mile for every inch they are given. They are hoping no one will contest them "deauthorizing" OGL 1.0.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
The fact that they are still trying to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a means this is a non-starter. That's not something that the community should budge on. Also, the VTT policy is horrible.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
And you will still be able to purchase and use those 3PP products you already see on the shelves, and new 3PP products will still appear on shelves under the new OGL. Nothing will change for you.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
It's not the OGL 1.2 itself its the crap in it that WotC is trying to pass. Sure they have backed off of royalties and such for now but could in the future. They also have not added in wording to make it irrevocable. Once again circling back to if in the future they feel like they want to make a new version they can rug pull again. It is better than the previous OGL 1.1 but WotC cannot be taken for their word OR have any good faith towards them. Until it is in writing that they will not do royalties and that its irrevocable we should continue this crusade against them. They threw the first stone, they just didn't expect us to insult their parents and yeet a cow at them.
They totally did add that wording in section 2 of the OGL 1.2, it is perpetual, irrevocable and cannot be modified (with exceptions to sections 5 and 9(a))
2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
I'm trying to figure out what someone could create using 1.0a that they couldn't create under the new OGL.
As far as I can tell, nothing fits in that category. Literally everything you could make using 1.0a you could make using the new one. Royalty structures are gone. License back language is gone. They're introducing the word "irrevocable" specifically into this.
They totally did add that wording in section 2 of the OGL 1.2, it is perpetual, irrevocable and cannot be modified (with exceptions to sections 5 and 9(a))
2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
I stand corrected. I do still have reservations about other parts of it. But as I said it's a step in the right direction. One of the big ones is the right to once again edit Section 5: You Control Your Content. This looks to me like they can change that in the future to use 3PP without compensation. Granted I am not a lawyer so it may be just benign but it looks fairly evil.
7.MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION (a)Modification.We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
Among other things is the push to subtly prevent some of the things that 1.0a allows, but they want exclusive control over.
Video Games being the more and more obvious example - Video Games existed back when 1.0a was written, and if they had wanted them to be excluded, they would have been. Instead, they recognized that a video game may be difficult to make with the OGL, but left the possibility open.
The new VTT policy makes it extremely clear that they're trying to draw a line on preventing their potential competition from implementing what they (in their sole determination) deem to be 'video game like features', like animations...
As well, there's the fact that while some people will claim it was not the intent that people could pick up 1.0a and start publishing content whenever, that's pretty clearly false. Every indication is that it appears to have been intended to out there as an option for people to create content with forever.
Plus, we all know what the actual intent is. Everything else aside, WotC/Hasbro is trying to go back on a contract/license they issued using quasi-legal chicanery. Thats not OK.
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
Whats reasonable about 1.2 ? You very well know what they tried to do with 1.1, if you give them an inch they will take a mile, and people who are saying 1.2 is not so bad will be the same ones who are ok with an even worse 1.3 when they decide to launch it after the heat goes down
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
Whats reasonable about 1.2 ? You very well know what they tried to do with 1.1, if you give them an inch they will take a mile, and people who are saying 1.2 is not so bad will be the same ones who are ok with an even worse 1.3 when they decide to launch it after the heat goes down
This is why any and all terms about being able to rescind or get rid of the license entirely has to go out the door. The community cannot agree to a lisence they WotC can change. We made that mistake with OGL 1.0 so now we must make sure that we set the terms.
Even if they somehow manage to de authorize 1.0a what are they going to do? 3rd party publishers are likely to abandon ship the moment it happens and they don't like the new terms, if they dont deauthorize 1.0 they simply burned years of goodwill and a load of cash for the attempt, if they succeed they loose most of what made them successful in the first place
Why are they still trying to claim they are going to de authorize 1.0a ? Its not something they can actually do, it was never the intended to be possible which is even confirmed by the person who made it. Saying something over and over again is not going to make it any more true.
Because they are greedy, slimy creatures of the night that only want to push out the OGL 1.2 or whatever they are calling it now. At this point, we should demand nothing less that the signing of the ORC. They have proven they cannot be trusted and they will take a mile for every inch they are given. They are hoping no one will contest them "deauthorizing" OGL 1.0.
The problem is, it is not written that way. It is also very debatable if the intent of the person who wrote it, that is no longer working for the current owner of the OGL, has any wight here.
There are as many lawyers saying it is deauthorizable, as there are lawyers saying it is not.
So, repeating over and over, it is not deauthorizable, does not make that true either.
WotC is set on deauthorizing it, so they are probably quite sure to win that one in court, and that is also the only place this disupute can be finally settled, because everyone else here and on youtube just does not know.
Honestly I hope you are wrong. Because if they DO move forward with this, it will severely damage D&D. My towns 6-ish groups that run D&D run 3PP content. We will go where 3PP content is because WotC own modules SUCK .
The fact that they are still trying to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a means this is a non-starter. That's not something that the community should budge on. Also, the VTT policy is horrible.
And you will still be able to purchase and use those 3PP products you already see on the shelves, and new 3PP products will still appear on shelves under the new OGL. Nothing will change for you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Can you elaborate on why you think, that deauthorizing the 1.0(a) and replacing it with a reasonable 1.2 is such a no-go? I mean, seriously, I really do not get the reason why you guys have this unmovable "if the 1.0(a) is not continued, nothing will suffice" and I want to understand this.
It's not the OGL 1.2 itself its the crap in it that WotC is trying to pass. Sure they have backed off of royalties and such for now but could in the future. They also have not added in wording to make it irrevocable. Once again circling back to if in the future they feel like they want to make a new version they can rug pull again. It is better than the previous OGL 1.1 but WotC cannot be taken for their word OR have any good faith towards them. Until it is in writing that they will not do royalties and that its irrevocable we should continue this crusade against them. They threw the first stone, they just didn't expect us to insult their parents and yeet a cow at them.
They totally did add that wording in section 2 of the OGL 1.2, it is perpetual, irrevocable and cannot be modified (with exceptions to sections 5 and 9(a))
2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
I'm trying to figure out what someone could create using 1.0a that they couldn't create under the new OGL.
As far as I can tell, nothing fits in that category. Literally everything you could make using 1.0a you could make using the new one. Royalty structures are gone. License back language is gone. They're introducing the word "irrevocable" specifically into this.
What's the problem?
I stand corrected. I do still have reservations about other parts of it. But as I said it's a step in the right direction. One of the big ones is the right to once again edit Section 5: You Control Your Content. This looks to me like they can change that in the future to use 3PP without compensation. Granted I am not a lawyer so it may be just benign but it looks fairly evil.
7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required
under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.
Among other things is the push to subtly prevent some of the things that 1.0a allows, but they want exclusive control over.
Video Games being the more and more obvious example - Video Games existed back when 1.0a was written, and if they had wanted them to be excluded, they would have been. Instead, they recognized that a video game may be difficult to make with the OGL, but left the possibility open.
The new VTT policy makes it extremely clear that they're trying to draw a line on preventing their potential competition from implementing what they (in their sole determination) deem to be 'video game like features', like animations...
As well, there's the fact that while some people will claim it was not the intent that people could pick up 1.0a and start publishing content whenever, that's pretty clearly false. Every indication is that it appears to have been intended to out there as an option for people to create content with forever.
Plus, we all know what the actual intent is. Everything else aside, WotC/Hasbro is trying to go back on a contract/license they issued using quasi-legal chicanery. Thats not OK.
Whats reasonable about 1.2 ? You very well know what they tried to do with 1.1, if you give them an inch they will take a mile, and people who are saying 1.2 is not so bad will be the same ones who are ok with an even worse 1.3 when they decide to launch it after the heat goes down
This is why any and all terms about being able to rescind or get rid of the license entirely has to go out the door. The community cannot agree to a lisence they WotC can change. We made that mistake with OGL 1.0 so now we must make sure that we set the terms.
Even if they somehow manage to de authorize 1.0a what are they going to do? 3rd party publishers are likely to abandon ship the moment it happens and they don't like the new terms, if they dont deauthorize 1.0 they simply burned years of goodwill and a load of cash for the attempt, if they succeed they loose most of what made them successful in the first place