4 ms·

This is more closely related to (for example) the company that's currently trying to reprint Star Frontiers, an 80s game to which WotC holds the rights, except

This is more closely related to (for example) the company that's currently trying to reprint Star Frontiers, an 80s game to which WotC holds the rights, except they're adding racism. https://www.thegamer.com/tsr-dave-johnson-star-frontiers-playtest-racist/ https://www.thegamer.com/tsr-dave-johnson-star-frontiers-pla... Good open licenses don't need a morals clause. Once you start licensing people to put your logos on their products, you need to think about it. This comment is not intended as approval of the OGL 1.1 in any way, but I think the objections to the morals clause on the basis that it's not needed are missing context.

BizarroLand 4y ago
I like the phrase, "Good open licenses don't need a morals clause". By and large we are all adults here. Some people may play D&D with sexuality or kink or racism or massive slaughter campaigns on a scale that rivals any battle sim. They're adults. They are allowed to do that, even if you or I personally find it distasteful. Other people may want to do such things. Hasbro and WoTC shouldn't have the ability to unilaterally rug pull their users because they're worried about getting a stain on the carpet. This whole thing was botched from the beginning. They should have phrased it as, "This is what we are thinking, please provide any feedback..." to the community. They would have still been eviscerated but people would say, "At least they started with talking it over and with the goal of making sure everyone was happy with the changes first. Could you imagine what it would be like if they just walked in and tried to dominate the community into submission because of some stupid copyright paperwork? God, they could have killed their brand!"