Like, imagine Disney saying something like, "OK, just can use our IP, but we'll start charging you a royalty only if you start making close to a million a year off it"
I can only assume the people in this thread trying to get outraged over that are Hasbro shareholders
The issue is that the OGL currently doesn't have such restrictions.
So you were getting everything for free before, and now you only get it for free under $750K
Gosh, what monsters
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's still punishing the people who're most successful at selling third party content, Anton. It's still saying "make successful enough product and we'll hit you with royalties until all your profit is ours instead." It's actively disincentivising selling popular third-party products because you'll have to turn over all the money to Wizards. People might feel some kind of way about previously making 750k+ on their business and now getting to keep zero percent of that profit.
Like, imagine Disney saying something like, "OK, just can use our IP, but we'll start charging you a royalty only if you start making close to a million a year off it"
I can only assume the people in this thread trying to get outraged over that are Hasbro shareholders
The issue is that the OGL currently doesn't have such restrictions.
So you were getting everything for free before, and now you only get it for free under $750K
Gosh, what monsters
Still unenforceable. No private business is ever under duress to provide their financials to anyone but the taxman, or a bank. If I was an indy D&D producer, my income would always be somewhere between 700,000 and none of your business.
Uh... license holders have to do it all the time. If the license has those terms in it, and the publisher agrees to that license, then, yes, they need to do it.
I don't think it's a good idea and that it goes directly against the "open" philosophy of open/copyleft licenses like the OGL, but your claim that no private business ever has to provide their financials to another business and that an updated OGL clause like that is unenforceable is complete and utter nonsense.
...so the OGL 1.1 can be circumvented by just making your content with 1.0?
Yes. Section 9 of the OGL v1.0 allows you to publish your open gaming content under any version of the OGL using open gaming content from any version of the OGL. The only ways for WotC to avoid that are: 1) The 4e GSL route where it was a different license, not an updated OGL, or 2) give enough of a benefit that publishers voluntarily use v1.1 rather than v1.0.
That was by design (and shows how WotC's attitude towards the OGL changed after Ryan Dancey left).
Sounds like they are not going with route #1, so #2 is more likely. Good money is on DDB and OneD&D VTT integration, but, to be clear, that's just pure speculation at this point.
That is not what it says - see the text of paragraph 9 and the fact that it uses “any version” and “authorised version” as if they are different terms within the same paragraph. A Legal reading of this paragraph would be closer to: “If something was considered open game content under a prior version of this agreement, that content will continue to be available under any future authorised version, even if that figure authorised version does not explicitly mention the content.” So, under 1.1, which likely will only list OneD&D Open Game Content specifically, that “authorised version” would look back in time to the 5e content authorised under the 1.0, and 1.1 would apply to the 5e content even though not specifically delineated by 1.1.
Obviously you are the expert, so I'm not going to try arguing this any further! LOL! ;)
I was just echoing WotC's own words (and beyond even the stated intent of Ryan Dancey, it was stated on an FAQ on WotC's own website explaining what the OGL means and how to use it), so that interpretation doesn't come from nowhere. As to whether it would hold up legally now, I am certainly not going to argue that point. However, they also are claiming today that the OGL was "never intended" to cover anything other than print media and static electronic files despite having had an entire FAQ on their website dedicated to explaining how to use the OGL with software including character generators specifically. So obviously there's either a short memory or some historical revisionism happening on WotC's part because even if that is WotC's intent now, claiming it was never WotC's intent is demonstrably false.
Either way, we'll see what the actual license is when it is released rather than speculate what may or may not happen, and I'll defer to your expertise on how it could be legally interpreted. Just FWIW, I'm echoing WotC's own words, not my interpretation.
From someone who deals with royalties in business, not paying any royalty percentages until you reach x amount in sales is a very good deal. The typical model is x% royalties owed on every sale, whether you sold $10 or $1000000 of product. It’s a win for both sides - WoTC gets some $ from businesses using their IP and the business that uses the IP is exposed to a significantly larger consumer base than they would without the IP/Brand they are paying royalties for.
How not? Previously a company didn't have to turn over their profits as royalties. Now they will. Seems fairly cut and dried, really.
First of all, they pay nothing on the first 750k. Second, they pay only a percentage on profits over that. So they’re getting to keep, like… 99.5% of the profits, a Far cry from the “zero” you’re catastrophizing about.
It's still punishing the people who're most successful at selling third party content, Anton. It's still saying "make successful enough product and we'll hit you with royalties until all your profit is ours instead." It's actively disincentivising selling popular third-party products because you'll have to turn over all the money to Wizards. People might feel some kind of way about previously making 750k+ on their business and now getting to keep zero percent of that profit.
Okay, a few things. I understand your concerns, but I feel like you don't properly understand the situation.
First off, the old OGL and SRD are still available, and always will be. WotC cannot make them go away or replace it with a new thing even if they tried (which they kind of did in 4e by making the GSL, but that sucked so no one used it). WotC cannot force people to use the new OGL and SRD. They can, however, make a new version of the OGL, publish a new SRD, and try to incentivize using it. They currently haven't said what content will be different in the new SRD (they probably haven't finished making it, so they probably don't even know the extent of the updates), but if WotC wants 3rd party creators to transition to the new OGL and SRD, they're going to have to give some motive to make it. That could involve adding more open content to it, like the races that will be included in the OneD&D PHB (Orcs, Ardlings, Goliaths) or maybe even content from non-Core 5e books (Goblinoids, Lizardfolk, maybe even the Artificer). It could involve allowing 3rd party creators that update to the new OGL to sell their content on D&D Beyond and the upcoming official VTT. All of this is speculation, but I don't believe WotC would be dumb enough to publish a more restrictive gaming license againwithout finding some way to incentivize using it.
Secondly, they're not going to take "all of the money" from the 20ish big party publishers that make $750,000+ per year. As I said earlier, those publishers don't have to use the new OGL and SRD. They can use the old thing if they don't see any reason to update to the new thing. However, even if they do choose to update to the newer license, WotC is almost certainly not dumb enough to "demand all the profits" from the companies. At most, I'll imagine it will be at most the same as how much they make from the DMsGuild, where they take 25% of the money made by the product. And, again, unless WotC somehow incentivizes the new license so much that it's almost impossible to sell 3rd party OneD&D content without using the new system, they can always continue publishing under the older license. They cannot "disencentivize selling popular 3rd party products", because those publishers can still continue using the old OGL without giving away a single penny to WotC. And even if they could, taking all of the money from these 3rd party creators would have the opposite effect of what WotC are hoping will happen. They want these creators to make them more money by giving them royalties, not to suck them dry and run them out of business.
I write freelance 5e articles for one of those 20 companies that makes over 750,000 dollars every year through the SRD. The owner of the company has said that they're going to have to wait and see how different the upcoming OGL and SRD are and how much of their profit WotC will take in order to decide whether or not they'll update. We currently don't have all of the information necessary to decide whether or not this is all doom and gloom. It could be overall beneficial for 3rd party publishers. I suggest that we wait until MCDM, Darrington Press, Kobold Press, ENPublishing, and the other major 3rd party 5e publishers make up their minds to decide whether or not this is a good thing or bad thing overall.
People might feel some kind of way about previously making 750k+ on their business and now getting to keep zero percent of that profit.
They certainly might feel some kind of way if that were anywhere close to what was happening, but it's not, so they won't. Problem solved!
The arguments being made in this thread to try and rile people up are equal mixes sad and hilarious, really
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
People might feel some kind of way about previously making 750k+ on their business and now getting to keep zero percent of that profit.
They certainly might feel some kind of way if that were anywhere close to what was happening, but it's not, so they won't. Problem solved!
It might be hyperbole, but the concept isn't wrong. Increased expenses aren't generally welcome in business unless it in turn brings in more money.
The difference between "zero" and "almost one hundred" isn't "hyperbole." It's either a gross misunderstanding, or it's a lie. I'm familiar enough with Yurei to giver her the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
The OGL was laid out when D&D was a fairly niche hobby mostly going on momentum. Now that it's worked, D&D is getting to be Big Business, and the myriad independent publishers who used the OGL to help propel D&D to this newfound success are themselves successful, Wizards is using the opportunity to modify the OGL to eliminate the 'O' part and demand that independent content creators and publishers cede their data and their profit to Wizards.
Is Wizards allowed to do this? I assume so, since they're advertising their doing of it on DDB. Is it a good look for them, or a move worthy of popular defense and support from the user base? I don't believe so. I thought they wouldn't be dumb enough to muck with the OGL, it is absolutely not in the best interests of D&D. But I forgot that Wizards is Wizards, and quarterly profit growth is more important than long-term health of their IP. Imposing punitive and suffocating royalty requirements on the "Open" Gaming License is terrible for the future of the game and WILL drastically impact the currently thriving market for high quality third-party supplements for the game...but it'll really look great on the next quarterly report. So here we are.
The OGL was laid out when D&D was a fairly niche hobby mostly going on momentum. Now that it's worked, D&D is getting to be Big Business, and the myriad independent publishers who used the OGL to help propel D&D to this newfound success are themselves successful, Wizards is using the opportunity to modify the OGL to eliminate the 'O' part and demand that independent content creators and publishers cede their data and their profit to Wizards.
Is Wizards allowed to do this? I assume so, since they're advertising their doing of it on DDB. Is it a good look for them, or a move worthy of popular defense and support from the user base? I don't believe so. I thought they wouldn't be dumb enough to muck with the OGL, it is absolutely not in the best interests of D&D. But I forgot that Wizards is Wizards, and quarterly profit growth is more important than long-term health of their IP. Imposing punitive and suffocating royalty requirements on the "Open" Gaming License is terrible for the future of the game and WILL drastically impact the currently thriving market for high quality third-party supplements for the game...but it'll really look great on the next quarterly report. So here we are.
Here are two relevant sections from the SRD 5.0:
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
The OGLs are eternal. Anything published under any SRD is usable with any version of the OGL. If they publish Orcs, Ardlings, and Goliaths under the upcoming OneD&D SRD, you will be able to publish them with either of the two previous versions of the OGL that don't require you to give information or money to WotC.
They cannot require you or anyone else to use the new OGL. You can use the new SRD with the previous OGLs if you want to. They can incentivize you to use it, by allowing your content to be sold on their platforms (like D&D Beyond), but they cannot force anyone to use the newer version of the OGL. They cannot force you to give them money if you abide by the terms of the OGL. They cannot force you to give your sales information to them if you abide by the terms of the OGL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The OGL was laid out when D&D was a fairly niche hobby mostly going on momentum. Now that it's worked, D&D is getting to be Big Business, and the myriad independent publishers who used the OGL to help propel D&D to this newfound success are themselves successful, Wizards is using the opportunity to modify the OGL to eliminate the 'O' part and demand that independent content creators and publishers cede their data and their profit to Wizards.
Is Wizards allowed to do this? I assume so, since they're advertising their doing of it on DDB. Is it a good look for them, or a move worthy of popular defense and support from the user base? I don't believe so. I thought they wouldn't be dumb enough to muck with the OGL, it is absolutely not in the best interests of D&D. But I forgot that Wizards is Wizards, and quarterly profit growth is more important than long-term health of their IP. Imposing punitive and suffocating royalty requirements on the "Open" Gaming License is terrible for the future of the game and WILL drastically impact the currently thriving market for high quality third-party supplements for the game...but it'll really look great on the next quarterly report. So here we are.
Here are two relevant sections from the SRD 5.0:
4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
The OGLs are eternal. Anything published under any SRD is usable with any version of the OGL. If they publish Orcs, Ardlings, and Goliaths under the upcoming OneD&D SRD, you will be able to publish them with either of the two previous versions of the OGL that don't require you to give information or money to WotC.
They cannot require you or anyone else to use the new OGL. You can use the new SRD with the previous OGLs if you want to. They can incentivize you to use it, by allowing your content to be sold on their platforms (like D&D Beyond), but they cannot force anyone to use the newer version of the OGL. They cannot force you to give them money if you abide by the terms of the OGL. They cannot force you to give your sales information to them if you abide by the terms of the OGL.
Just a thought doesn't it mean anything distributed under any version of that specific ogl
Making a new one and shit could mean they aren't using any version of that ogl, so they could force ppl to pay royalties
The_Leviathan_of_Levistus - As I have explained in prior posts in more detail, it is my interpretation that you are reading the OGL incorrectly. The part you ignore is that the OGL is not an open invitation--like all contacts it requires an offer and acceptance. This is defined under Paragraph 3 as you receiving the License for a specific product--each new use of Open Game Contact forms a new contract and a new iteration of the contract.
What does that mean? Under basic contract law, an offer can be revoked at any time until acceptance. When Wizards releases 1.1, they will all but certainly be suspending their offers under 1.0. That means any new use of OGL is going to be an acceptance of the 1.1 terms.
Everything else follows from that--Paragraph 4 ensures the perpetuity of your 1.0 rights only if you entered into the 1.0 contact; it does not perpetually allow someone to enter into the 1.0 contract once 1.0 is discontinued by Wizards.
Likewise, Paragraph 14 does not say you get to choose any version of OGL to apply--it says that, even if the OGL changes and the SRD changes, SRD content from obsolete versions of the OGL can still be utilized in the presently authorized version, even if not specifically mentioned in the current OGL. Or, to provide a practical example, the 5e content in 1.0 will likely not be reprinted in 1.1--that will be dominated by OneD&D. Paragraph 14 just clarifies that, even though 1.1 does not mention the 5e SRD content, you can still use it under 1.1.
Just a thought doesn't it mean anything distributed under any version of that specific ogl
Making a new one and shit could mean they aren't using any version of that ogl, so they could force ppl to pay royalties
WotC are still calling the new version an OGL. We'll have to see what exact changes the new version makes, but from what we know now, they will be compatible. The document says you can use any SRD content with any version of the OGL and WotC are calling the new thing an OGL. It's pretty clear what that means.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
The_Leviathan_of_Levistus - As I have explained in prior posts in more detail, it is my interpretation that you are reading the OGL incorrectly. The part you ignore is that the OGL is not an open invitation--like all contacts it requires an offer and acceptance. This is defined under Paragraph 3 as you receiving the License for a specific product--each new use of Open Game Contact forms a new contract and a new iteration of the contract.
What does that mean? Under basic contract law, an offer can be revoked at any time until acceptance. When Wizards releases 1.1, they will all but certainly be suspending their offers under 1.0. That means any new use of OGL is going to be an acceptance of the 1.1 terms.
Everything else follows from that--Paragraph 4 ensures the perpetuity of your 1.0 rights only if you entered into the 1.0 contact; it does not perpetually allow someone to enter into the 1.0 contract once 1.0 is discontinued by Wizards.
The OGL cannot be discontinued. It says in Section 4 that it's a perpetual license. It's forever. It cannot be revoked.
Likewise, Paragraph 14 does not say you get to choose any version of OGL to apply--it says that, even if the OGL changes and the SRD changes, SRD content from obsolete versions of the OGL can still be utilized in the presently authorized version, even if not specifically mentioned in the current OGL. Or, to provide a practical example, the 5e content in 1.0 will likely not be reprinted in 1.1--that will be dominated by OneD&D. Paragraph 14 just clarifies that, even though 1.1 does not mention the 5e SRD content, you can still use it under 1.1.
Paragraph 14 is about if the license has anything that doesn't hold up legally, they will change the document to follow the law. That's not about whether or not the document is revocable. The document can only be "revoked" if you break the agreements you make when using it (using their IP or having a court-order to not use it, for example).
The document clearly says that it is perpetual and doesn't have any clause for "unauthorizing" it. Every version of it is perpetual. You can use any open content with any version of it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Just a thought doesn't it mean anything distributed under any version of that specific ogl
Making a new one and shit could mean they aren't using any version of that ogl, so they could force ppl to pay royalties
WotC are still calling the new version an OGL. We'll have to see what exact changes the new version makes, but from what we know now, they will be compatible. The document says you can use any SRD content with any version of the OGL and WotC are calling the new thing an OGL. It's pretty clear what that means.
Not if we're having a massive discussion like this. From just a few statements alone it's become evident that while you can use the 1.0 contract for 5e, you won't be able to use it with 1.1 even if that means they change the name and write a new document. Whether or not it's called that now doesn't matter, it's pretty clear what the intent is so if they have to change it they will
Just a thought doesn't it mean anything distributed under any version of that specific ogl
Making a new one and shit could mean they aren't using any version of that ogl, so they could force ppl to pay royalties
WotC are still calling the new version an OGL. We'll have to see what exact changes the new version makes, but from what we know now, they will be compatible. The document says you can use any SRD content with any version of the OGL and WotC are calling the new thing an OGL. It's pretty clear what that means.
Not if we're having a massive discussion like this. From just a few statements alone it's become evident that while you can use the 1.0 contract for 5e, you won't be able to use it with 1.1 even if that means they change the name and write a new document. Whether or not it's called that now doesn't matter, it's pretty clear what the intent is so if they have to change it they will
People disagreeing with fact does not make them right. There are people that think the moon landing was faked and the Earth is flat. There have been "massive discussions" about those things too.
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law. Out of all of the people in this thread, I'm probably the one with the most knowledge of how the OGL works, because I have sold content under it. I have spoken with people that are professionals on this topic, and they have told me that the OGL is non-revocable and eternal. You can use any version of the SRD with any version of the OGL.
The fact that you and others disagree does not make your argument valid or as right as mine is.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
So you were getting everything for free before, and now you only get it for free under $750K
Gosh, what monsters
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
It's still punishing the people who're most successful at selling third party content, Anton. It's still saying "make successful enough product and we'll hit you with royalties until all your profit is ours instead." It's actively disincentivising selling popular third-party products because you'll have to turn over all the money to Wizards. People might feel some kind of way about previously making 750k+ on their business and now getting to keep zero percent of that profit.
Please do not contact or message me.
Uh... license holders have to do it all the time. If the license has those terms in it, and the publisher agrees to that license, then, yes, they need to do it.
I don't think it's a good idea and that it goes directly against the "open" philosophy of open/copyleft licenses like the OGL, but your claim that no private business ever has to provide their financials to another business and that an updated OGL clause like that is unenforceable is complete and utter nonsense.
They certainly might feel some kind of way if that were anywhere close to what was happening, but it's not, so they won't. Problem solved!
How not? Previously a company didn't have to turn over their profits as royalties. Now they will. Seems fairly cut and dried, really.
Please do not contact or message me.
It might be hyperbole, but the concept isn't wrong. Increased expenses aren't generally welcome in business unless it in turn brings in more money.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Obviously you are the expert, so I'm not going to try arguing this any further! LOL! ;)
I was just echoing WotC's own words (and beyond even the stated intent of Ryan Dancey, it was stated on an FAQ on WotC's own website explaining what the OGL means and how to use it), so that interpretation doesn't come from nowhere. As to whether it would hold up legally now, I am certainly not going to argue that point. However, they also are claiming today that the OGL was "never intended" to cover anything other than print media and static electronic files despite having had an entire FAQ on their website dedicated to explaining how to use the OGL with software including character generators specifically. So obviously there's either a short memory or some historical revisionism happening on WotC's part because even if that is WotC's intent now, claiming it was never WotC's intent is demonstrably false.
Either way, we'll see what the actual license is when it is released rather than speculate what may or may not happen, and I'll defer to your expertise on how it could be legally interpreted. Just FWIW, I'm echoing WotC's own words, not my interpretation.
From someone who deals with royalties in business, not paying any royalty percentages until you reach x amount in sales is a very good deal. The typical model is x% royalties owed on every sale, whether you sold $10 or $1000000 of product. It’s a win for both sides - WoTC gets some $ from businesses using their IP and the business that uses the IP is exposed to a significantly larger consumer base than they would without the IP/Brand they are paying royalties for.
First of all, they pay nothing on the first 750k. Second, they pay only a percentage on profits over that. So they’re getting to keep, like… 99.5% of the profits, a Far cry from the “zero” you’re catastrophizing about.
Okay, a few things. I understand your concerns, but I feel like you don't properly understand the situation.
First off, the old OGL and SRD are still available, and always will be. WotC cannot make them go away or replace it with a new thing even if they tried (which they kind of did in 4e by making the GSL, but that sucked so no one used it). WotC cannot force people to use the new OGL and SRD. They can, however, make a new version of the OGL, publish a new SRD, and try to incentivize using it. They currently haven't said what content will be different in the new SRD (they probably haven't finished making it, so they probably don't even know the extent of the updates), but if WotC wants 3rd party creators to transition to the new OGL and SRD, they're going to have to give some motive to make it. That could involve adding more open content to it, like the races that will be included in the OneD&D PHB (Orcs, Ardlings, Goliaths) or maybe even content from non-Core 5e books (Goblinoids, Lizardfolk, maybe even the Artificer). It could involve allowing 3rd party creators that update to the new OGL to sell their content on D&D Beyond and the upcoming official VTT. All of this is speculation, but I don't believe WotC would be dumb enough to publish a more restrictive gaming license again without finding some way to incentivize using it.
Secondly, they're not going to take "all of the money" from the 20ish big party publishers that make $750,000+ per year. As I said earlier, those publishers don't have to use the new OGL and SRD. They can use the old thing if they don't see any reason to update to the new thing. However, even if they do choose to update to the newer license, WotC is almost certainly not dumb enough to "demand all the profits" from the companies. At most, I'll imagine it will be at most the same as how much they make from the DMsGuild, where they take 25% of the money made by the product. And, again, unless WotC somehow incentivizes the new license so much that it's almost impossible to sell 3rd party OneD&D content without using the new system, they can always continue publishing under the older license. They cannot "disencentivize selling popular 3rd party products", because those publishers can still continue using the old OGL without giving away a single penny to WotC. And even if they could, taking all of the money from these 3rd party creators would have the opposite effect of what WotC are hoping will happen. They want these creators to make them more money by giving them royalties, not to suck them dry and run them out of business.
I write freelance 5e articles for one of those 20 companies that makes over 750,000 dollars every year through the SRD. The owner of the company has said that they're going to have to wait and see how different the upcoming OGL and SRD are and how much of their profit WotC will take in order to decide whether or not they'll update. We currently don't have all of the information necessary to decide whether or not this is all doom and gloom. It could be overall beneficial for 3rd party publishers. I suggest that we wait until MCDM, Darrington Press, Kobold Press, ENPublishing, and the other major 3rd party 5e publishers make up their minds to decide whether or not this is a good thing or bad thing overall.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The arguments being made in this thread to try and rile people up are equal mixes sad and hilarious, really
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
The difference between "zero" and "almost one hundred" isn't "hyperbole." It's either a gross misunderstanding, or it's a lie. I'm familiar enough with Yurei to giver her the benefit of the doubt and assume the former.
The OGL was laid out when D&D was a fairly niche hobby mostly going on momentum. Now that it's worked, D&D is getting to be Big Business, and the myriad independent publishers who used the OGL to help propel D&D to this newfound success are themselves successful, Wizards is using the opportunity to modify the OGL to eliminate the 'O' part and demand that independent content creators and publishers cede their data and their profit to Wizards.
Is Wizards allowed to do this? I assume so, since they're advertising their doing of it on DDB. Is it a good look for them, or a move worthy of popular defense and support from the user base? I don't believe so. I thought they wouldn't be dumb enough to muck with the OGL, it is absolutely not in the best interests of D&D. But I forgot that Wizards is Wizards, and quarterly profit growth is more important than long-term health of their IP. Imposing punitive and suffocating royalty requirements on the "Open" Gaming License is terrible for the future of the game and WILL drastically impact the currently thriving market for high quality third-party supplements for the game...but it'll really look great on the next quarterly report. So here we are.
Please do not contact or message me.
Here are two relevant sections from the SRD 5.0:
The OGLs are eternal. Anything published under any SRD is usable with any version of the OGL. If they publish Orcs, Ardlings, and Goliaths under the upcoming OneD&D SRD, you will be able to publish them with either of the two previous versions of the OGL that don't require you to give information or money to WotC.
They cannot require you or anyone else to use the new OGL. You can use the new SRD with the previous OGLs if you want to. They can incentivize you to use it, by allowing your content to be sold on their platforms (like D&D Beyond), but they cannot force anyone to use the newer version of the OGL. They cannot force you to give them money if you abide by the terms of the OGL. They cannot force you to give your sales information to them if you abide by the terms of the OGL.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Just a thought doesn't it mean anything distributed under any version of that specific ogl
Making a new one and shit could mean they aren't using any version of that ogl, so they could force ppl to pay royalties
The_Leviathan_of_Levistus - As I have explained in prior posts in more detail, it is my interpretation that you are reading the OGL incorrectly. The part you ignore is that the OGL is not an open invitation--like all contacts it requires an offer and acceptance. This is defined under Paragraph 3 as you receiving the License for a specific product--each new use of Open Game Contact forms a new contract and a new iteration of the contract.
What does that mean? Under basic contract law, an offer can be revoked at any time until acceptance. When Wizards releases 1.1, they will all but certainly be suspending their offers under 1.0. That means any new use of OGL is going to be an acceptance of the 1.1 terms.
Everything else follows from that--Paragraph 4 ensures the perpetuity of your 1.0 rights only if you entered into the 1.0 contact; it does not perpetually allow someone to enter into the 1.0 contract once 1.0 is discontinued by Wizards.
Likewise, Paragraph 14 does not say you get to choose any version of OGL to apply--it says that, even if the OGL changes and the SRD changes, SRD content from obsolete versions of the OGL can still be utilized in the presently authorized version, even if not specifically mentioned in the current OGL. Or, to provide a practical example, the 5e content in 1.0 will likely not be reprinted in 1.1--that will be dominated by OneD&D. Paragraph 14 just clarifies that, even though 1.1 does not mention the 5e SRD content, you can still use it under 1.1.
WotC are still calling the new version an OGL. We'll have to see what exact changes the new version makes, but from what we know now, they will be compatible. The document says you can use any SRD content with any version of the OGL and WotC are calling the new thing an OGL. It's pretty clear what that means.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
The OGL cannot be discontinued. It says in Section 4 that it's a perpetual license. It's forever. It cannot be revoked.
Paragraph 14 is about if the license has anything that doesn't hold up legally, they will change the document to follow the law. That's not about whether or not the document is revocable. The document can only be "revoked" if you break the agreements you make when using it (using their IP or having a court-order to not use it, for example).
The document clearly says that it is perpetual and doesn't have any clause for "unauthorizing" it. Every version of it is perpetual. You can use any open content with any version of it.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Not if we're having a massive discussion like this. From just a few statements alone it's become evident that while you can use the 1.0 contract for 5e, you won't be able to use it with 1.1 even if that means they change the name and write a new document. Whether or not it's called that now doesn't matter, it's pretty clear what the intent is so if they have to change it they will
People disagreeing with fact does not make them right. There are people that think the moon landing was faked and the Earth is flat. There have been "massive discussions" about those things too.
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law. Out of all of the people in this thread, I'm probably the one with the most knowledge of how the OGL works, because I have sold content under it. I have spoken with people that are professionals on this topic, and they have told me that the OGL is non-revocable and eternal. You can use any version of the SRD with any version of the OGL.
The fact that you and others disagree does not make your argument valid or as right as mine is.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms