7 ms·

For those of us that don't want to go into another person's Google Drive, could you give a summary of this? (or an alternate source?)

Y_Y 4y ago
It's a letter from an affected publisher's lawyer, too long to post verbatim. They say they want to be able to keep publishing stuff under this license, give supporting citations and demand clarification.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  And they say that if they receive no reply within 10 days, they, as well as other affected parties, will sue Hasbo/WotC
- bonzini 4y ago
  They don't provide many citations though. They mostly mention that "authorized versions" is not defined in the license and they cite the FAQ (mentioned in the OP as well), hinting that reneging the words of the FAQ would constitute estoppel.
codetrotter 4y ago
> alternate source? https://archive.is/EFalu https://archive.is/EFalu
_v7gu 4y ago
Here's a chatgpt summary: - Wizards of the Coast announced on December 21, 2022 that a new version of the Open Gaming License (OGL) would be released, causing confusion in the gaming community. - The letter writer, who represents Sad Fishe Games and Prudence Holdings, has tried to contact Wizards of the Coast through various channels to seek clarification, but has not received a response. - There are rumors that the new 1.1 version of the OGL will restrict the use of the 1.0a version and require contributors to share financial data and potentially pay a royalty to Wizards of the Coast for the use of OGL content. - The letter writer argues that the 1.0a version of the OGL cannot be revoked and that Wizards of the Coast does not have the authority to terminate the license or force contributors to use the 1.1 version. - The letter writer cites previous statements made by Wizards of the Coast and case law to support this interpretation. - The letter writer requests that Wizards of the Coast provide a more definite statement on the 1.1 version of the OGL and deauthorize any attempt to repudiate the 1.0a version.
- bovermyer 4y ago
  Because it's ChatGPT, I immediately cannot trust this summary.
  - default_png 4y ago
    Because it's on the Internet I immediately cannot trust this summary.
    - BlueTemplar 4y ago
      You hopefully are aware that ChatGPT results in a quite different category of wrongness ?
      - t-writescode 4y ago
        How so? A summary by a random person on the internet *here*, is probably even worse than a summary where ChatGPT was given exactly the content of that text and asked to summarize it. ChatGPT is probably even better than those random Reddit news article summaries that were all the rage for a while.
        BlueTemplar 4y ago
        I didn't say better or worse, I said different. ChatGPT doesn't care about getting it right or wrong, and won't get rewarded / penalized for it.
  - runnerup 4y ago
    It's accurate but for case law was not really cited. Also missed out on a few important nuances, including but not limited to: - that the legal action to be taken against WotC would be focused around building a coalition for a "class action" injunction against WotC based on their "apparent intention to breach the 1.0a Open Gaming License". - "22-23 years of conduct on the part of WotC which ratifies the important section", - provided a very narrow alley for a semi-face-saving "out" to WotC in the form of "perhaps this was all a big misunderstanding". - overall tone was very "we will 100% absolutely demolish you in court but would rather you just come to your senses". - threatened legal subpoenas depositions with all that entails, namely the implications implicit in depositions that resulting information would either: cause great embarrassment to WotC or potentially open up perjury/etc charges against individuals if they obscured embarrassing testimony. If I was posting a ChatGPT summary I would have used the ChatGPT output as a starting point and edited these points into it, and blending my style with OpenGPT's style. That's what I'd like others to do as well if they insist on using ChatGPT so much.
timvdalen 4y ago
Sure, here's a rehosted link: https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted.pdf https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMIL... Would you mind explaining why you don't want to go into another person's Google Drive? Just Google tracking?
- wodenokoto 4y ago
  If I'm logged in, suddenly parts of my browsing history becomes part of my drive.
  - mvolfik 4y ago
    Is it too difficult to open a link in an anonymous window, if being logged in is the only concern?
- BlueTemplar 4y ago
  I don't know for him, but in my case I'm trying to boycott all GAFAM content, so I take it poorly when someone tries to force me to use them (especially when alternatives exist).
- t-writescode 4y ago
  It's a Google Drive link, so it could very easily be a PDF or docx or anything with executable code; and I avoid reading random PDFs online unless they're provided by a reputable source. I also didn't click the super long link here. And, since it's Google Drive, I don't want to deal with having to open the link in a private browser. For the person saying "isn't it easy just to open it in a private browser?" sure; but it's also friction I don't feel like dealing with, especially since it could easily be a PDF or whatever and my concerns remain.

Y_Y 4y ago

It's a letter from an affected publisher's lawyer, too long to post verbatim. They say they want to be able to keep publishing stuff under this license, give supporting citations and demand clarification.

Semaphor 4y ago
And they say that if they receive no reply within 10 days, they, as well as other affected parties, will sue Hasbo/WotC
bonzini 4y ago
They don't provide many citations though. They mostly mention that "authorized versions" is not defined in the license and they cite the FAQ (mentioned in the OP as well), hinting that reneging the words of the FAQ would constitute estoppel.

codetrotter 4y ago

> alternate source? https://archive.is/EFalu https://archive.is/EFalu

_v7gu 4y ago

Here's a chatgpt summary: - Wizards of the Coast announced on December 21, 2022 that a new version of the Open Gaming License (OGL) would be released, causing confusion in the gaming community. - The letter writer, who represents Sad Fishe Games and Prudence Holdings, has tried to contact Wizards of the Coast through various channels to seek clarification, but has not received a response. - There are rumors that the new 1.1 version of the OGL will restrict the use of the 1.0a version and require contributors to share financial data and potentially pay a royalty to Wizards of the Coast for the use of OGL content. - The letter writer argues that the 1.0a version of the OGL cannot be revoked and that Wizards of the Coast does not have the authority to terminate the license or force contributors to use the 1.1 version. - The letter writer cites previous statements made by Wizards of the Coast and case law to support this interpretation. - The letter writer requests that Wizards of the Coast provide a more definite statement on the 1.1 version of the OGL and deauthorize any attempt to repudiate the 1.0a version.

bovermyer 4y ago
Because it's ChatGPT, I immediately cannot trust this summary.
- default_png 4y ago
  Because it's on the Internet I immediately cannot trust this summary.
  - BlueTemplar 4y ago
    You hopefully are aware that ChatGPT results in a quite different category of wrongness ?
    - t-writescode 4y ago
      How so? A summary by a random person on the internet *here*, is probably even worse than a summary where ChatGPT was given exactly the content of that text and asked to summarize it. ChatGPT is probably even better than those random Reddit news article summaries that were all the rage for a while.
      - BlueTemplar 4y ago
        I didn't say better or worse, I said different. ChatGPT doesn't care about getting it right or wrong, and won't get rewarded / penalized for it.
- runnerup 4y ago
  It's accurate but for case law was not really cited. Also missed out on a few important nuances, including but not limited to: - that the legal action to be taken against WotC would be focused around building a coalition for a "class action" injunction against WotC based on their "apparent intention to breach the 1.0a Open Gaming License". - "22-23 years of conduct on the part of WotC which ratifies the important section", - provided a very narrow alley for a semi-face-saving "out" to WotC in the form of "perhaps this was all a big misunderstanding". - overall tone was very "we will 100% absolutely demolish you in court but would rather you just come to your senses". - threatened legal subpoenas depositions with all that entails, namely the implications implicit in depositions that resulting information would either: cause great embarrassment to WotC or potentially open up perjury/etc charges against individuals if they obscured embarrassing testimony. If I was posting a ChatGPT summary I would have used the ChatGPT output as a starting point and edited these points into it, and blending my style with OpenGPT's style. That's what I'd like others to do as well if they insist on using ChatGPT so much.

timvdalen 4y ago

Sure, here's a rehosted link: https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMILE__425_271_5215_001_Redacted.pdf https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMIL... Would you mind explaining why you don't want to go into another person's Google Drive? Just Google tracking?

wodenokoto 4y ago
If I'm logged in, suddenly parts of my browsing history becomes part of my drive.
- mvolfik 4y ago
  Is it too difficult to open a link in an anonymous window, if being logged in is the only concern?
BlueTemplar 4y ago
I don't know for him, but in my case I'm trying to boycott all GAFAM content, so I take it poorly when someone tries to force me to use them (especially when alternatives exist).
t-writescode 4y ago
It's a Google Drive link, so it could very easily be a PDF or docx or anything with executable code; and I avoid reading random PDFs online unless they're provided by a reputable source. I also didn't click the super long link here. And, since it's Google Drive, I don't want to deal with having to open the link in a private browser. For the person saying "isn't it easy just to open it in a private browser?" sure; but it's also friction I don't feel like dealing with, especially since it could easily be a PDF or whatever and my concerns remain.