The only sin of the open letter is apparently to mention games as examples that aren't bound by OGL but were simply released under the terms of OGL; it makes se

The only sin of the open letter is apparently to mention games as examples that aren't bound by OGL but were simply released under the terms of OGL; it makes sense otherwise (I'm not familiar with those games enough to know whether that's their actual status though). It's pretty obvious that if I make a fully custom game and release it under OGL 1.0a now, WotC has nothing to do with it. Because of OGL's wording, someone may be able to use my work under the terms of OGL 1.1, which may be undesired from my point of view, but this doesn't influence the fact that I'm still offering it under OGL 1.0a to anyone who wants to choose that version of the license. To guard myself from such situation, I'd have to state that I'm licensing it under OGL 1.0a only, at a cost of potentially making it incompatible with content released on a future version of the license - just like some GPL projects do (most notably Linux, which is GPLv2-only). > I'm the one asking questions, not offering explanations. And I'm offering explanations :)