3 ms·

> The D&D rules aren't free software, My point is they wouldn't be, even if the rules were software, because the violate the zeroth essential software freedom.

> The D&D rules aren't free software, My point is they wouldn't be, even if the rules were software, because the violate the zeroth essential software freedom. I bring this up particularly because the earlier versions of the OGL are compared to free software licenses in this thread. This new license is nothing of the sort. > branding concerns That's not special to tabletop gaming, software has branding too and there are certainly advocates for adding "no evil" clauses to licenses, like Douglas Crockford. But addressing such concerns in the license makes that license non-free.

tptacek 4y ago
I think everybody in the world is pretty clear about the fact that OGL 1.1 isn't comparable to a FOSS license. It requires revenue reporting and a 25% royalty on all gross returns above a threshold! It's a commercial license, and an onerous one. Everything has branding, but products and projects exist on a spectrum of sensitivity to branding issues; the representation in media of a Disney character would be at one far end of the spectrum, the uses an open source image editor were put to might be at the other. WOTC's D&D IP is somewhere in the middle.
- LarryMullins 4y ago
  I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with then. Or are you agreeing with me?
  - tptacek 4y ago
    I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues. I have two rebuttals to your original post: first, there's no pretense that 1.1 is a FOSS-comparable license, and second, there are obvious reasons why, even if they had done a more FOSS-acceptable 1.1 in every other regard, they might still need the morality clause.
    - LarryMullins 4y ago
      > I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues The Zeroth Freedom is the most important, the freedom to use it.
      - tptacek 4y ago
        If what you're saying is that an exclusive, intrusive commercial license without a morality clause is more in the spirit of FOSS than a non-exclusive, non-intrusive free-use license with a morality clause, well, (1) that's a take, (2) I don't agree at all, and (3) we can probably just agree to disagree. At any rate: we've identified the disagreement, so let's take that as a win.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        I believe that morality clauses are the greatest threat to Free Software, particularly because they seem like a reasonable abridgement of the zeroth freedom when considered at first glance, and it is sometimes difficult to advocate against such abridgement without having nasty accusations thrown against you. Of all abridgements to software freedom, morality clauses seem to have found the widest popular support among people who style themselves as supporting Free Software.
        tptacek 4y ago
        There is no mainstream FOSS license with a morality clause.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Tautologically true.
- Macha 4y ago
  OGL v1.0a is, and the issue at hand is Wizards is abusing their position as author of a license to try transmute a FOSS-inspired license to a commercial one sided license.
  - tptacek 4y ago
    Yes, obviously. But that has nothing to do with the morality clause; it has to do with the fact that WOTC has decided their licenses are completely revocable, and their demonstrated willingness to replace them with onerous commercial licenses. If a FOSS vendor had pulled the rug WOTC did here, the morality clause would be the very least of your concerns.

tptacek 4y ago

I think everybody in the world is pretty clear about the fact that OGL 1.1 isn't comparable to a FOSS license. It requires revenue reporting and a 25% royalty on all gross returns above a threshold! It's a commercial license, and an onerous one. Everything has branding, but products and projects exist on a spectrum of sensitivity to branding issues; the representation in media of a Disney character would be at one far end of the spectrum, the uses an open source image editor were put to might be at the other. WOTC's D&D IP is somewhere in the middle.

LarryMullins 4y ago
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with then. Or are you agreeing with me?
- tptacek 4y ago
  I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues. I have two rebuttals to your original post: first, there's no pretense that 1.1 is a FOSS-comparable license, and second, there are obvious reasons why, even if they had done a more FOSS-acceptable 1.1 in every other regard, they might still need the morality clause.
  - LarryMullins 4y ago
    > I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license, the morality clause is the least of the issues The Zeroth Freedom is the most important, the freedom to use it.
    - tptacek 4y ago
      If what you're saying is that an exclusive, intrusive commercial license without a morality clause is more in the spirit of FOSS than a non-exclusive, non-intrusive free-use license with a morality clause, well, (1) that's a take, (2) I don't agree at all, and (3) we can probably just agree to disagree. At any rate: we've identified the disagreement, so let's take that as a win.
      - LarryMullins 4y ago
        I believe that morality clauses are the greatest threat to Free Software, particularly because they seem like a reasonable abridgement of the zeroth freedom when considered at first glance, and it is sometimes difficult to advocate against such abridgement without having nasty accusations thrown against you. Of all abridgements to software freedom, morality clauses seem to have found the widest popular support among people who style themselves as supporting Free Software.
        tptacek 4y ago
        There is no mainstream FOSS license with a morality clause.
        LarryMullins 4y ago
        Tautologically true.
Macha 4y ago
OGL v1.0a is, and the issue at hand is Wizards is abusing their position as author of a license to try transmute a FOSS-inspired license to a commercial one sided license.
- tptacek 4y ago
  Yes, obviously. But that has nothing to do with the morality clause; it has to do with the fact that WOTC has decided their licenses are completely revocable, and their demonstrated willingness to replace them with onerous commercial licenses. If a FOSS vendor had pulled the rug WOTC did here, the morality clause would be the very least of your concerns.