CasusNO

DocDandy a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 11:46 am j'ai peut être raté l'info ici mais on a là un bel exemple du désaveu de WOTC par les fans.
Notre Surcapitaine National signe les papiers du divorce.
https://macchiatomaster.blot.im/dear-wi ... -the-coast

DocDandy a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 11:46 am j'ai peut être raté l'info ici mais on a là un bel exemple du désaveu de WOTC par les fans.
Notre Surcapitaine National signe les papiers du divorce.
https://macchiatomaster.blot.im/dear-wi ... -the-coast

haplo a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 9:20 am

Tymophil a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 6:55 am

Cédric Jeanneret a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 1:27 am bon après Wotc demande des retours, donc il y a une chance non nul qu'ils spécifient un peu plus ce point là...

D'après le youtubeur DnD Shorts, qui semble avoir des contacts à l'intérieur de Wizards of the Coast, les surveys de Wizards of the Coast ne sont pas même lus. Ils sont juste destinés à canaliser les critiques vers un endroit où ils disparaissent de l'espace public...

Ça a été démenti par d'ex employés (qui n'ont pas d'épée de Damoclès au dessus de la tête, genre Winninger). Et franchement, pourquoi s'embêter a faire tous ces sondages etc pour ne pas les lire ?

It's better. It's certainly better. But it's still not good. These are suggestions I would make for their feedback survey.

Revocability. It says it's irrevocable, but it's not -- while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is 'harmful' or 'obscene' at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen.

The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

Will they? They say they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they say doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text.

I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their own content recently).

OGL v1.0a. They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.

Good stuff? Is there good stuff? Well, there's an absence of some of the leaked bad stuff. But the bad stuff already isn't in OGL v1.0a, so 'not doing bad stuff' is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that's good. Not being able to change it at-will, that's good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say 'good'; I just mean 'not bad'.

Works covered. It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers "printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)". What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it's managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then.

Creative Commons. Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that sounds generous, but it's actually a reduction in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid).

So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form.

jbbourgoin a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 1:59 pm Une réponse sensée.

Islayre d'Argolh a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 1:37 pm Retour de Morrus (Level UP 5e, créateur/éditeur de contenu OGL pro depuis l'origine) sur cette 1.2

I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their own content recently).

Tholgren a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 1:32 pm En plus ça ferait un beau setting ça : imaginez une organisation de mages plutôt bienveillants, supplantés au fil des ans par d'autres complètement acquis à leur goût pour la richesse et le pouvoir.

Nobboc theHalfGreat a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 2:12 pm Un tribunal populaire pour décider de ce qui est "hateful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing", non, je ne vois pas tellement en quoi c'est tellement sensé.  Pas plus que de laisser ça aux mains d'une entreprise privée. Pas envie de ce monde là.

Il y a les lois parfaitement valides et disponibles,  qui couvrent déjà cette problématique.

Sammael99 a écrit : ↑ven. janv. 20, 2023 2:18 pm

(Et tout ça en supposant qu'ils sont de bonne foi...)