I understand what you’re saying, but attempting to revoke a widely-used open source license is not just something completely within their rights.
Their sudden claim to have ability to “deauthorize” the 20+ year old OGL and destroy the partners and competitors who built businesses on the promises of a perpetual license - this was an egregious move that was almost certainly not within their rights.
Legal analysts were quite consistent in that it’s impossible to be certain but this process wouldn’t have withstood a solid legal test.
WotC, in trying to pull this, was attempting to leverage their expensive legal team to bully people into giving away their legal rights under the open license. That’s shady and deeply unethical, and shouldn’t be considered to be within their rights.
Now for the future content they make, they can release that under a closed license if they want and that is within their rights even if I don’t like that license.
Their sudden claim to have ability to “deauthorize” the 20+ year old OGL and destroy the partners and competitors who built businesses on the promises of a perpetual license - this was an egregious move that was almost certainly not within their rights.
Legal analysts were quite consistent in that it’s impossible to be certain but this process wouldn’t have withstood a solid legal test.
WotC, in trying to pull this, was attempting to leverage their expensive legal team to bully people into giving away their legal rights under the open license. That’s shady and deeply unethical, and shouldn’t be considered to be within their rights.
Now for the future content they make, they can release that under a closed license if they want and that is within their rights even if I don’t like that license.