While you are reading and analyzing the draft of 1.2, please make sure to keep in mind that anything which proposes "deauthorization" of 1.0a should never be seen as acceptable for the community, if in fact you value the community that has been created up to this point.
I honestly don't care what they put in a new "OGL" which affects future editions of the game, the key factor that people need to be aware of (and sadly seems to be glossed over too frequently) is that the existing license for content which was published under said license must stay. If it does not, no quarter shall be given.
1. 1.0a did not have irrevocable language. It said "you may use any 'authorized' version". This one does include the irrevocable language, with only two sections (not involving any rights) being excluded. This means that 1.2 can never be deauthorized.
2. 1.0a is not deauthorized for any existing content. All existing content is still licensed under the original 1.0a license. It only means that any new content made after 1.2 goes live cannot be licensed under 1.0a.
3. 1.0a must be deauthorized for future works in order to address the concerns that were included in this version.
1. 1.0a did not have irrevocable language. It said "you may use any 'authorized' version". This one does include the irrevocable language, with only two sections (not involving any rights) being excluded. This means that 1.2 can never be deauthorized.
2. 1.0a is not deauthorized for any existing content. All existing content is still licensed under the original 1.0a license. It only means that any new content made after 1.2 goes live cannot be licensed under 1.0a.
3. 1.0a must be deauthorized for future works in order to address the concerns that were included in this version.
So much wrong here... you should keep in mind that:
1. When 1.0a was written, phrases like "irrevocable" were not standard in legal documents. This standard has evolved since then. Which is why "deauthorizing" probably won't hold up in the first place. 2. "Authorized version" refers to versions published by an authorized source. This is because OGL 1.0a was leaning heavily on the wording in open source licenses regarding software and it was intended to prevent spoofed versions of a license to be presented as valid. 3. Existing content is irrelevant. Content currently in production and future content for current systems are my concern. 4. That is just wrong. I'm all for a new OGL that has whatever provisions to affect future versions A new edition does not need to be licensed under OGL 1.0a. They can simply keep 1.0a for 3.5 and 5e and go with a new OGL 1.x/2.x for OneD&D. And nobody will care since people can just stick with 5e. Which is likely going to happen anyway since the changes proposed for OneD&D so far make it look like a far inferior version.
They are very much trying to shut down vtt's with the no animation stuff. How far will they push?
So I cant animate magic missile now, what about a generic light coming from my hand? How can they think they can prevent that?
So a wizards fire ball is out, but what about a fireplace?
Wizards shield no good, but a generic ghostly light around the token??
What about homebrew stuff that I animate?
What about lights and walls in Foundry, roll20 and FG? I cant do that around a table, but is that considered against the "rules".
Fog of war? well I guess that is ok because on the table I can use a bit of paper to block the map.
Obviously I can do what I want with my own computer and players, but streamers will just either use generic terms or no longer show DnD and only show pf2 etc, so that is what the public will see and be driven to those games spending money there. WotC forget how much free advertising they were getting from streamers and the community saying "play this game"
On another note: the pretense that this is all for preventing hate speech.... well does a dragon who dislikes all dwarves because one killed its father hate speech?? Does the kingdom who rallys against a distdructive giant worm considered discriminatory behavior to the worm.... who gets to decide now... This is dangerous language in the "new" OGL.
Feel rather encouraged actually, of course I want to feel that way, I want this to work out. personally it very much depends how this gets digested by the 3rd parties the players in the scene is this something they can work with? does this give them confidence and security to continue making great stuff for D&D? I truly hope so or at least that they get there.
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
3. 1.0a must be deauthorized for future works in order to address the concerns that were included in this version.
Well, then we have a problem. And by we have I mean WoTC and me. ¿What can I do? Stop buying their products. Don't watch the movie. Not giving visibility to its content (for example, not teaching new players how to play). And do not give them money in any way.
I've been playing D&D for 30 years, and I buy pretty much everything WoTC puts out. I'm just one person, it's not much. But if there are many who feel like me. That they are not going to accept that 1.0a be disavowed, and that they are going to stop being WoTC clients; then yes they will have a problem.
People who are going to refuse to use their VTT. People who are not going to buy their books. People who are not going to renew their DNDBeyond subscription. And people who are going to go to other systems. That, instead of teaching new players how to play D&D, they are going to teach them Pathfinder, Shadow of the demon lord, or some other game.
And if instead of being me, that I am irrelevant, it is people with real weight in the community. People whose games on Twitch and other platforms draw thousands of viewers. If those people also get angry and run their games with pathfinder or others, instead of D&D, what will happen to you WoTC? What will happen to your monetization plans?
3. 1.0a must be deauthorized for future works in order to address the concerns that were included in this version.
The only purpose WotC has to implement the deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a) is to take away the community's ability to continue to propagate versions of the game other than OneD&D. Any other changes they want can be implemented independently of the existing license and does not require its deauthorization.
The last time they tried to decouple themselves from the OGL was with the GSL and 4th edition. For a variety of reasons, this was not only unsuccessful, but led to the rise of Paizo and the creation of the Pathfinder game. There are two ways to prevent this from happening again: (1) create a new game and license that is so great that the public will want to play it to the exclusion of others, or (2) force the public to play their game by taking away peoples' ability to create alternatives. WotC has clearly made their choice.
You missed this part - they can revoke the entire license, making the “irrevocable” language pointless.
Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.
This is the first consideration for the real issues generated by these drafts. Boiling it down:
- Section 6(f) condemns Hateful Content and Conduct, and specifically grants Wizards the "sole right to decide" what is or is not hateful, and that as a licensee you would not be permitted to raise a dispute. This begs the question: Why do they need this power? Are there examples of products in development to be published under the OGL that are clearly offensive? Does Wizards intend to police its community? Can they use this power to shut down competition publishing with OGL?
-Distinguishing between VTTs and video games may be important for categorization, but they are clearly trying to limit the functionality of VTTs in artistic capacities that the One D&D VTT is expected to utilize. What's important to note is the definition matters to the policy they're providing. If it's too much like a video game, then it will be considered unprotected by the VTT policy. If it's unprotected by VTT policy, Wizards can go all out and take down a product for taking creative liberty with content they *technically* did not license out.
-Deauthorizing 1.0a is not a problem if the new version of the OGL can be deemed acceptable. They outline pretty clearly that the intent is to prevent works from being published under the previous license. Short of Wizards withdrawing their attempt at a new OGL (frankly the fact that they proposed public playtesting was a stretch already) it is a certainty that OGL 1.0a will no longer apply to new publications.
That is why it is essential for each person to be involved in 1.2's development. Ideally, we the community will have the language changed to permit more freedom to players and not grant WotC powers they do not need. No matter what passes, we have a responsibility to ensure that Wizards remains accountable, honest, and reasonable. Even if 1.2 somehow releases in its current state, we need to demand fair, equitable treatment from their decisions and transparency in why those decisions are made. It is far too easy to see Wizards utilizing powers they grant themselves to eliminate competition.
This is the first consideration for the real issues generated by these drafts. Boiling it down:
- Section 6(f) condemns Hateful Content and Conduct, and specifically grants Wizards the "sole right to decide" what is or is not hateful, and that as a licensee you would not be permitted to raise a dispute. This begs the question: Why do they need this power? Are there examples of products in development to be published under the OGL that are clearly offensive? Does Wizards intend to police its community? Can they use this power to shut down competition publishing with OGL?
-Distinguishing between VTTs and video games may be important for categorization, but they are clearly trying to limit the functionality of VTTs in artistic capacities that the One D&D VTT is expected to utilize. What's important to note is the definition matters to the policy they're providing. If it's too much like a video game, then it will be considered unprotected by the VTT policy. If it's unprotected by VTT policy, Wizards can go all out and take down a product for taking creative liberty with content they *technically* did not license out.
-Deauthorizing 1.0a is not a problem if the new version of the OGL can be deemed acceptable. They outline pretty clearly that the intent is to prevent works from being published under the previous license. Short of Wizards withdrawing their attempt at a new OGL (frankly the fact that they proposed public playtesting was a stretch already) it is a certainty that OGL 1.0a will no longer apply to new publications.
That is why it is essential for each person to be involved in 1.2's development. Ideally, we the community will have the language changed to permit more freedom to players and not grant WotC powers they do not need. No matter what passes, we have a responsibility to ensure that Wizards remains accountable, honest, and reasonable. Even if 1.2 somehow releases in its current state, we need to demand fair, equitable treatment from their decisions and transparency in why those decisions are made. It is far too easy to see Wizards utilizing powers they grant themselves to eliminate competition.
Really admire WotC for going the extra mile and adding a bunch of stuff to a Creative Commons license that they could actually legally try to claim ownership of anyway.
Legal Eagle's video talking about how you cannot own the rules for a game might have accidentally pre-empted WotC pretty badly here.
Just bit the bullet and sign onto the ORC at this point, because every new iteration of the OGL is just another stamp on the "WotC cannot be trusted" card.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While you are reading and analyzing the draft of 1.2, please make sure to keep in mind that anything which proposes "deauthorization" of 1.0a should never be seen as acceptable for the community, if in fact you value the community that has been created up to this point.
I honestly don't care what they put in a new "OGL" which affects future editions of the game, the key factor that people need to be aware of (and sadly seems to be glossed over too frequently) is that the existing license for content which was published under said license must stay. If it does not, no quarter shall be given.
Also, keep the feedback public.
Prepare for the lawsuits WOTC you're in for a shellacking.
You cannot deauthorize 1.0a.
Keep in mind that
1. 1.0a did not have irrevocable language. It said "you may use any 'authorized' version". This one does include the irrevocable language, with only two sections (not involving any rights) being excluded. This means that 1.2 can never be deauthorized.
2. 1.0a is not deauthorized for any existing content. All existing content is still licensed under the original 1.0a license. It only means that any new content made after 1.2 goes live cannot be licensed under 1.0a.
3. 1.0a must be deauthorized for future works in order to address the concerns that were included in this version.
So much wrong here... you should keep in mind that:
1. When 1.0a was written, phrases like "irrevocable" were not standard in legal documents. This standard has evolved since then. Which is why "deauthorizing" probably won't hold up in the first place.
2. "Authorized version" refers to versions published by an authorized source. This is because OGL 1.0a was leaning heavily on the wording in open source licenses regarding software and it was intended to prevent spoofed versions of a license to be presented as valid.
3. Existing content is irrelevant. Content currently in production and future content for current systems are my concern.
4. That is just wrong. I'm all for a new OGL that has whatever provisions to affect future versions A new edition does not need to be licensed under OGL 1.0a. They can simply keep 1.0a for 3.5 and 5e and go with a new OGL 1.x/2.x for OneD&D. And nobody will care since people can just stick with 5e. Which is likely going to happen anyway since the changes proposed for OneD&D so far make it look like a far inferior version.
will take it to my lawyer and see but i have a feeling its going to be a big NO and you need to sign on to the ORC
All you need to know is after all this they still plan on "Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a". They are truly deaf and/or think nothing of the community.
Yep saw the deauthorizing part instant no from me. Wotc needs to get their shit together.
They are very much trying to shut down vtt's with the no animation stuff. How far will they push?
So I cant animate magic missile now, what about a generic light coming from my hand? How can they think they can prevent that?
So a wizards fire ball is out, but what about a fireplace?
Wizards shield no good, but a generic ghostly light around the token??
What about homebrew stuff that I animate?
What about lights and walls in Foundry, roll20 and FG? I cant do that around a table, but is that considered against the "rules".
Fog of war? well I guess that is ok because on the table I can use a bit of paper to block the map.
Obviously I can do what I want with my own computer and players, but streamers will just either use generic terms or no longer show DnD and only show pf2 etc, so that is what the public will see and be driven to those games spending money there. WotC forget how much free advertising they were getting from streamers and the community saying "play this game"
On another note: the pretense that this is all for preventing hate speech.... well does a dragon who dislikes all dwarves because one killed its father hate speech?? Does the kingdom who rallys against a distdructive giant worm considered discriminatory behavior to the worm.... who gets to decide now...
This is dangerous language in the "new" OGL.
Not just for deauthorization but from VVTs as well. There is a clause in there that would cripple them in the 1.2.
Feel rather encouraged actually, of course I want to feel that way, I want this to work out.
personally it very much depends how this gets digested by the 3rd parties the players in the scene is this something they can work with? does this give them confidence and security to continue making great stuff for D&D? I truly hope so or at least that they get there.
“It cannot be seen, cannot be felt, Cannot be heard, cannot be smelt, It lies behind stars and under hills, And empty holes it fills, It comes first and follows after, Ends life, kills laughter.” J.R.R. Tolkien, The Hobbit, or There and Back Again
Well, then we have a problem. And by we have I mean WoTC and me. ¿What can I do? Stop buying their products. Don't watch the movie. Not giving visibility to its content (for example, not teaching new players how to play). And do not give them money in any way.
I've been playing D&D for 30 years, and I buy pretty much everything WoTC puts out. I'm just one person, it's not much. But if there are many who feel like me. That they are not going to accept that 1.0a be disavowed, and that they are going to stop being WoTC clients; then yes they will have a problem.
People who are going to refuse to use their VTT. People who are not going to buy their books. People who are not going to renew their DNDBeyond subscription. And people who are going to go to other systems. That, instead of teaching new players how to play D&D, they are going to teach them Pathfinder, Shadow of the demon lord, or some other game.
And if instead of being me, that I am irrelevant, it is people with real weight in the community. People whose games on Twitch and other platforms draw thousands of viewers. If those people also get angry and run their games with pathfinder or others, instead of D&D, what will happen to you WoTC? What will happen to your monetization plans?
The only purpose WotC has to implement the deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a) is to take away the community's ability to continue to propagate versions of the game other than OneD&D. Any other changes they want can be implemented independently of the existing license and does not require its deauthorization.
The last time they tried to decouple themselves from the OGL was with the GSL and 4th edition. For a variety of reasons, this was not only unsuccessful, but led to the rise of Paizo and the creation of the Pathfinder game. There are two ways to prevent this from happening again: (1) create a new game and license that is so great that the public will want to play it to the exclusion of others, or (2) force the public to play their game by taking away peoples' ability to create alternatives. WotC has clearly made their choice.
You missed this part - they can revoke the entire license, making the “irrevocable” language pointless.
This is the first consideration for the real issues generated by these drafts. Boiling it down:
- Section 6(f) condemns Hateful Content and Conduct, and specifically grants Wizards the "sole right to decide" what is or is not hateful, and that as a licensee you would not be permitted to raise a dispute. This begs the question: Why do they need this power? Are there examples of products in development to be published under the OGL that are clearly offensive? Does Wizards intend to police its community? Can they use this power to shut down competition publishing with OGL?
-Distinguishing between VTTs and video games may be important for categorization, but they are clearly trying to limit the functionality of VTTs in artistic capacities that the One D&D VTT is expected to utilize. What's important to note is the definition matters to the policy they're providing. If it's too much like a video game, then it will be considered unprotected by the VTT policy. If it's unprotected by VTT policy, Wizards can go all out and take down a product for taking creative liberty with content they *technically* did not license out.
-Deauthorizing 1.0a is not a problem if the new version of the OGL can be deemed acceptable. They outline pretty clearly that the intent is to prevent works from being published under the previous license. Short of Wizards withdrawing their attempt at a new OGL (frankly the fact that they proposed public playtesting was a stretch already) it is a certainty that OGL 1.0a will no longer apply to new publications.
That is why it is essential for each person to be involved in 1.2's development. Ideally, we the community will have the language changed to permit more freedom to players and not grant WotC powers they do not need. No matter what passes, we have a responsibility to ensure that Wizards remains accountable, honest, and reasonable. Even if 1.2 somehow releases in its current state, we need to demand fair, equitable treatment from their decisions and transparency in why those decisions are made. It is far too easy to see Wizards utilizing powers they grant themselves to eliminate competition.
This is the first consideration for the real issues generated by these drafts. Boiling it down:
- Section 6(f) condemns Hateful Content and Conduct, and specifically grants Wizards the "sole right to decide" what is or is not hateful, and that as a licensee you would not be permitted to raise a dispute. This begs the question: Why do they need this power? Are there examples of products in development to be published under the OGL that are clearly offensive? Does Wizards intend to police its community? Can they use this power to shut down competition publishing with OGL?
-Distinguishing between VTTs and video games may be important for categorization, but they are clearly trying to limit the functionality of VTTs in artistic capacities that the One D&D VTT is expected to utilize. What's important to note is the definition matters to the policy they're providing. If it's too much like a video game, then it will be considered unprotected by the VTT policy. If it's unprotected by VTT policy, Wizards can go all out and take down a product for taking creative liberty with content they *technically* did not license out.
-Deauthorizing 1.0a is not a problem if the new version of the OGL can be deemed acceptable. They outline pretty clearly that the intent is to prevent works from being published under the previous license. Short of Wizards withdrawing their attempt at a new OGL (frankly the fact that they proposed public playtesting was a stretch already) it is a certainty that OGL 1.0a will no longer apply to new publications.
That is why it is essential for each person to be involved in 1.2's development. Ideally, we the community will have the language changed to permit more freedom to players and not grant WotC powers they do not need. No matter what passes, we have a responsibility to ensure that Wizards remains accountable, honest, and reasonable. Even if 1.2 somehow releases in its current state, we need to demand fair, equitable treatment from their decisions and transparency in why those decisions are made. It is far too easy to see Wizards utilizing powers they grant themselves to eliminate competition.
This is the company that changed the deterministic nature of alignment with a single word, "typically".
This is the company that is changing the word "race" to "species" because while technically correct, "race" has negative social connotations.
It stands to reason that they could declare just as little to be hateful, and that's all they need to terminate a license.
Really admire WotC for going the extra mile and adding a bunch of stuff to a Creative Commons license that they could actually legally try to claim ownership of anyway.
Legal Eagle's video talking about how you cannot own the rules for a game might have accidentally pre-empted WotC pretty badly here.
Just bit the bullet and sign onto the ORC at this point, because every new iteration of the OGL is just another stamp on the "WotC cannot be trusted" card.