@Johnnephew @CountZeroor @eff it’s a good agnostic summary of the legalities (and probably a good explainer-balm for people if the OGL 1.0a “goes away”), but I also had the sense that they’d glossed over some of the history in so doing.

eliminating the risk of legal minutiae was the whole point, and for the industry, that was a very important point at the time.

@CountZeroor @eff There was a lot good in that article, but I think it missed the boat on understanding the role of both Product Identity and Open Game Content. The original D&D 3.0 SRD contained ZERO product identity. Designating it ALL as OGC meant that no one had to parse the legal minutiae of "is this specific thing subject to copyright?" -- just use it.

Product Identity, in contrast, was a term that gave publishers confidence to add their own material to the body of OGC without

@pluralistic @neroden The contract doesn't say "irrevocable," but it does include specific conditions for termination. In that respect it is very similar to v.1 of the CC-A license put out years later, which also does not use the term "irrevocable" in its first iteration.

I am dubious of the idea that any copyright-related contract that does not say it is "irrevocable" can be rewritten at will by one party.