[ SECRET POST #5867 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5867 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.



__________________________________________________



03.



__________________________________________________



04.



__________________________________________________



05.



__________________________________________________



06.



__________________________________________________



07.



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 42 secrets from Secret Submission Post #840.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[fscom]

03. https://i.imgur.com/AsUtEM3.png

[(Anonymous)]

Legal Eagle on youtube has a good video on it if you want another explainer that actually explains some of the legal issues at play: https://youtu.be/iZQJQYqhAgY

But otherwise, a lay DnDer probably just needs to know that WotC tried to screw over their fans in an effort to make more money and then had to backtrack when all its fans inevitably didn't like that. So, you know, just know that WotC are bastards, ie the status quo.

[(Anonymous)]

WotC had an agreement where you could write and sell content based on D&D - so for instance, if you were just some guy, you could write an adventure for D&D 5e and sell that adventure and keep the money without paying WoTC or having a commercial D&D license. Then they decided to unilaterally change that agreement (which they had said they would never do) to force more people to use commercial licenses instead.

[feotakahari]

The agreement legally could not be revoked. They said they could legally deauthorize it. Nobody was able to explain the difference between revoking and deauthorizing.

[(Anonymous)]

I'm not a lawyer nor am I familiar with this particular case, but I do work in a law-adjacent field. The difference is pretty murky but generally revoking would be taking away permission that had been previously granted and deauthorizing would be so that going forward, nothing could be authorized.

It really does depend on the wording of the original agreements though. And someone can absolutely argue they mean the same thing and, they're not wrong, but they're also not right. It's a weird grey area.

[(Anonymous)]

It feels like in practice, it's a situation where the agreement means whatever WotC says it means because they're able to spend the most on lawyers.

[feotakahari]

Yeah, WotC’s business rival Paizo put out a statement that basically said “our lawyer worked on the OGL. It was not supposed to work this way.” https://paizo.com/community/blog/v5748dyo6si7v

[(Anonymous)]

Opening Arguments did a podcast episode kind of on the OGL but mostly on why the first Gizmodo article that lit the whole fandom on fire about it was an error-filled mess and basically a hit piece.

https://twitter.com/openargs/status/1613796913748344832

[(Anonymous)]

All I need to know: I got a group for Pathfinder edition 2 together because people wanted to play something Not DnD.

(it went great, I love Pe2, I love my group <3)