It's a letter from an affected publisher's lawyer, too long to post verbatim. They say they want to be able to keep publishing stuff under this license, give supporting citations and demand clarification.

And they say that if they receive no reply within 10 days, they, as well as other affected parties, will sue Hasbo/WotC

They don't provide many citations though. They mostly mention that "authorized versions" is not defined in the license and they cite the FAQ (mentioned in the OP as well), hinting that reneging the words of the FAQ would constitute estoppel.

> alternate source?

https://archive.is/EFalu

Here's a chatgpt summary:

- Wizards of the Coast announced on December 21, 2022 that a new version of the Open Gaming License (OGL) would be released, causing confusion in the gaming community.

- The letter writer, who represents Sad Fishe Games and Prudence Holdings, has tried to contact Wizards of the Coast through various channels to seek clarification, but has not received a response.

- There are rumors that the new 1.1 version of the OGL will restrict the use of the 1.0a version and require contributors to share financial data and potentially pay a royalty to Wizards of the Coast for the use of OGL content.

- The letter writer argues that the 1.0a version of the OGL cannot be revoked and that Wizards of the Coast does not have the authority to terminate the license or force contributors to use the 1.1 version.

- The letter writer cites previous statements made by Wizards of the Coast and case law to support this interpretation.

- The letter writer requests that Wizards of the Coast provide a more definite statement on the 1.1 version of the OGL and deauthorize any attempt to repudiate the 1.0a version.

Because it's ChatGPT, I immediately cannot trust this summary.

Because it's on the Internet I immediately cannot trust this summary.

You hopefully are aware that ChatGPT results in a quite different category of wrongness ?

How so? A summary by a random person on the internet *here*, is probably even worse than a summary where ChatGPT was given exactly the content of that text and asked to summarize it.

ChatGPT is probably even better than those random Reddit news article summaries that were all the rage for a while.

I didn't say better or worse, I said different.

ChatGPT doesn't care about getting it right or wrong, and won't get rewarded / penalized for it.

It's accurate but for case law was not really cited. Also missed out on a few important nuances, including but not limited to:

- that the legal action to be taken against WotC would be focused around building a coalition for a "class action" injunction against WotC based on their "apparent intention to breach the 1.0a Open Gaming License".

- "22-23 years of conduct on the part of WotC which ratifies the important section",

- provided a very narrow alley for a semi-face-saving "out" to WotC in the form of "perhaps this was all a big misunderstanding".

- overall tone was very "we will 100% absolutely demolish you in court but would rather you just come to your senses".

- threatened legal subpoenas depositions with all that entails, namely the implications implicit in depositions that resulting information would either: cause great embarrassment to WotC or potentially open up perjury/etc charges against individuals if they obscured embarrassing testimony.

If I was posting a ChatGPT summary I would have used the ChatGPT output as a starting point and edited these points into it, and blending my style with OpenGPT's style. That's what I'd like others to do as well if they insist on using ChatGPT so much.

Sure, here's a rehosted link: https://timvdalen.nl/files/20230105_VIA_US_MAIL_AND_FASCIMIL...

Would you mind explaining why you don't want to go into another person's Google Drive? Just Google tracking?

If I'm logged in, suddenly parts of my browsing history becomes part of my drive.

Is it too difficult to open a link in an anonymous window, if being logged in is the only concern?

I don't know for him, but in my case I'm trying to boycott all GAFAM content, so I take it poorly when someone tries to force me to use them (especially when alternatives exist).

It's a Google Drive link, so it could very easily be a PDF or docx or anything with executable code; and I avoid reading random PDFs online unless they're provided by a reputable source. I also didn't click the super long link here.

And, since it's Google Drive, I don't want to deal with having to open the link in a private browser. For the person saying "isn't it easy just to open it in a private browser?" sure; but it's also friction I don't feel like dealing with, especially since it could easily be a PDF or whatever and my concerns remain.