3 ms·
> Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant. Dancey was the
by WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant.
Dancey was the VP in charge of the product at WotC at the time. Obviously what he says is relevant because he wasn’t talking strictly in his name but in the name of the company.
- trynewideas 4y agoThat's great, but Dancey's name isn't on the license, Wizards of the Coast's is. Anyone else at Wizards can contest any statement of intent he makes. Dancey's statement this week also wasn't from his time at Wizards, nor as a representative of the licenser - indeed, he now works at AEG, a competitor with a catalog including OGL v1.0a-licensed works for sale and a vested financial interest in the OGL v1.0a working the way he describes it. The WotC FAQ from that time, again, is relevant IMO. Maybe Dancey wrote it. But it's relevant because Wizards published it. 2022 Ryan Dancey is not.
- WastingMyTime89 4y agoI don’t understand your comment. It doesn’t matter than Dansey’s name isn’t on the license. Writing document exists from the time when he was representing WotC where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual which is the point of him commenting on the whole thing. It’s not about 2022 Dancey. I understand you don’t like the guy but that doesn’t preclude him for saying relevant things.
- hutzlibu 4y ago"where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual" This is still not relevant here, it is about irrevocible. But apparently he also said that and it was in the official FAQ. If official FAQs are meaningless, then this just gives room for open fraud.