I think so. WotC actually put up good numbers, but I think DND has gotten a lot of visibility lately from hasbro corporate, so there is pressure to squeeze more out of it by any means
www.dndbeyond.com
When it comes to contracts of what is and isn't included, it's better to outline what is included, then immediately follow it up with an exceptions or violations list. Skimming the link you provided, they spliced the license and hateful bullet points in totally different prargraphs.OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons
Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...
Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:
Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.
- 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
- 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
- 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
- 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
- 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.
I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:
then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous
- If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.
So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?
- No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.
I mean what do people honestly want the to do? They HAVE to protect their brand somehow. If someone were to take key elements, make a giant stink with the public, the associative back lash will harm the brand. I can’t blame them for that rule.OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons
Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...
Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:
Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.
- 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
- 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
- 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
- 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
- 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.
I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:
then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous
- If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.
So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?
- No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.
The OGL had restrictions in place already to protect against that. You couldn't just publish an adventure where you have to murder Drizzt Do'urden and Strahd von Zarovich for having a gay affair. Specific characters and iconic monsters were already barred from use. It was just the more generic stuff like Elves and Dwarves that were open access
What would all those poor hobbyists do without Hasbro protecting the IP they took from them for nothing.
But the hobbyists never owned the IP, right?
Correct. That was their mistake, giving everything away thinking they were contributing to a common good, not a for profit media empire.
OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons
Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...
Near total backtrack, look at dem numbers:
Curious how this, plus the layoffs, shifts the direction of DnD.
- 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
- 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
- 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
- 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
- 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.
I'm also curious why there is so much "hateful content" discussion from WOTC, like in this post OGL blog. What was this, some specific event? They say the license is irrevocable in one sentence:
then say it can be revoked for a rather nebulous
- If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.
So which is it? We have unfettered access to all of it or you can drum up a "harmful content" accusation about anything you don't like/threatens OneD&D?
- No hateful content or conduct. If you include harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content (or engage in that conduct publicly), we can terminate your OGL 1.2 license to our content.
