Crowd sourcing: Press friendly shorts regarding OGL.

[Enrahim2]

Now that main stream press have started picked things up, there might be a chance even people on this forum might be asked for comments. So far the press releases I have seen have been quite poor at explaining what this whole OGL thing is, and legalese make for boring and not very engaging articles. I am sure there are a lot here that can come up with good formulations and stings that might help "the normal guy" start understanding what is at stakes. I'll begin.
"Imagine everyone creating and conducting business using Linux were told they thanks to a legal loophole had to start paying a fee to it's creator."
"Imagine releasing art using CC-Attribution, intending it to help other creators. Imagine someone suddenly getting exclusive rights to determine who gets to use it, and without attribution."

 

[Enrahim2]

"OGL was a peace deal between people wanting to create fantasy content. Wizards just shredded that peace deal."

 

[Enrahim2]

"Former Microsoft executives crushes thriving open source community"

 

[Steampunkette]

"The OGL 1.0 was a promise that Wizards of the Coast would accept long standing case law that a method cannot be copyrighted or trademarked. To not use the court system as a way to try and wipe out competitors with legal fees in cases that would never end, because if they did WotC would lose. The OGL 1.1 was a threat to break that promise unless creators and competitors paid them 25% of gross income in royalties and provided WotC with free labor. It was Blackmail. Now even small third party creators, like me, refuse to do further business with them."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

"Imagine everyone creating and conducting business using Linux were told they thanks to a legal loophole had to start paying a fee to it's creator."

Basically what Oracle tried to pull on Google re: Java. They've lost, repeatedly, to the tune of billions.

 

[aco175]

"Imagine everyone creating and conducting business using Linux were told they thanks to a legal loophole had to start paying a fee to it's creator."
"Imagine releasing art using CC-Attribution, intending it to help other creators. Imagine someone suddenly getting exclusive rights to determine who gets to use it, and without attribution."

I do not think these would be good examples to say to the press hoping the common people know what they are. I barely know what Linux is and have no idea on CC-Attribution.

I was trying to think of something more common that would relay the concept, but found I going to say Tic-Tok something and then I needed to stop.