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.
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law.
I would avoid speaking on behalf of others; I feel pretty confident that at least one of us is a lawyer who has done work with drafting plenty of contracts and who has a fair bit of experience with IP law.
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.
I mean cool I've sold content too, and I actively still make content(that i no longer sell but guve freelly), but sure disregard what me and others say because you MUST be right
No you aren't. What I said was if they really wanted to they could legitimately just change what they call it and shit, even if you were right, and then just never use the 1.0 ogl for it
It doesn't matter what its called now the intent is pretty clear and if they have to change it, even though they probably don't, they will find a way to do so.
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
I have spoken with experts on this topic that have been publishing content under the OGL for two decades. They have said that the document cannot be revoked. They've published 3rd party content under both versions of the OGL and under different SRDs. I trust them over you. What are your qualifications?
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law.
I would avoid speaking on behalf of others; I feel pretty confident that at least one of us is a lawyer who has done work with drafting plenty of contracts and who has a fair bit of experience with IP law.
By all means, if anyone here is a lawyer that specializes in this subject, speak up. But from what I've seen, none have, and I feel confident in saying that none of us are.
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.
Discontinued in the sense that it will no longer be offered on new products
WoTC will discontinue using it, even though any prior usage will remain grandfathered in
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)
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
I have spoken with experts on this topic that have been publishing content under the OGL for two decades. They have said that the document cannot be revoked. They've published 3rd party content under both versions of the OGL and under different SRDs. I trust them over you. What are your qualifications?
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law.
I would avoid speaking on behalf of others; I feel pretty confident that at least one of us is a lawyer who has done work with drafting plenty of contracts and who has a fair bit of experience with IP law.
By all means, if anyone here is a lawyer that specializes in this subject, speak up. But from what I've seen, none have, and I feel confident in saying that none of us are.
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
I have spoken with experts on this topic that have been publishing content under the OGL for two decades. They have said that the document cannot be revoked. They've published 3rd party content under both versions of the OGL and under different SRDs. I trust them over you. What are your qualifications?
The OGL is a legal document. None of us are lawyers that specialize in copyright/trademark law.
I would avoid speaking on behalf of others; I feel pretty confident that at least one of us is a lawyer who has done work with drafting plenty of contracts and who has a fair bit of experience with IP law.
By all means, if anyone here is a lawyer that specializes in this subject, speak up. But from what I've seen, none have, and I feel confident in saying that none of us are.
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
Just in case. It is Caerwyn_Glyndwr. They are the attorney who has IP experience.
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
I already did that. But to restate - what you call the “old OGL” is not a contract - it is an offer to make a contract, with, as set forth in paragraph 3, is accepted upon using OGC content for that OGC content. The offer alone is not binding on anyone - it only becomes binding once accepted and only is binding as to that particular contract. That is the basic fundamental of how a contract comes into existence - you need offer and acceptance. Without both, there is no contract and no rights conferred on either party.
An offer can be revoked by the person making an offer at any time - that is basic contract law as well.
Technically, they are not revoking any licenses - those licenses only exist when there is both offer and acceptance, and anyone’s use of OGC content under where they formed the contract under 1.0 has the 1.0 rights in perpetuity. But, once that offer (again, the document is a non-binding offer until actualised) is revoked and a new offer is put on the table, the prior offer ceases to exist and therefore cannot be accepted. As such, you could no longer have an offer and acceptance under the 1.0 terms and therefore cannot form new 1.0 contracts.
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
Caerwyn is saying that people who released content before OGL 1.1 are not bound by the terms of OGL 1.1 - if you released your thing under OGL 1.0, OGL 1.0 is what applies to your thing. The OGL is not a single massive nebulous thing that Governs All D&D, it's effectively a template for innumerable individual smaller agreements that all follow the same form. Those existing agreements are unaffected by changes to the OGL and are governed by the version of the OGL they were authored under. Darrington Press used OGL 1.0 to release the Tal'Dorei Campaign Guide Reborn, as one example, and the specific license agreement governing TDCGR will not change.
Effectively, they cannot Darth Vader you - the terms of your specific deal with Wizards cannot be changed once struck.
The terms of new agreements, forged after the introduction of OGL 1.1, will by necessity use the terms of OGL 1.1. You will very likely be on the hook for feeding the same 25%+ of your gross profits to Wizards that you would if publishing via the DM's Guild, which is an enormous bite of the proceeds for any given book, and you don't get to use OGL 1.0 to avoid it. Your existing OGL 1.0 things will remain OGL 1.0 things; their license cannot be revoked. Wizards cannot look at highly successful OGL 1.0 products and say "these are governed by OGL 1.1 now, you owe us ten trillion dollars in retroactive royalties." They can, however, demand that everybody who does stuff for D&D going forward do so under much more draconian, intimidating, and profitmongering terms, heavily chilling the willingness of any given individual or company to do D&D stuff and effectively strangling the previously thriving third-party content market the current, permissive OGL has created.
under much more draconian, intimidating, and profitmongering terms
LOL
Zero royalties up to $750K. Much draconian. So profitmonger
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)
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
To a large extent I agree with your understanding of the OGL at least being past-WotC's intent (especially since WotC's own explanation of the OGL stated in regards to Section 9 specifically, "As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway."), but that being said, you are not doing yourself any favors. :)
Caerwyn is a lawyer and knows the legal interpretation of the OGL wording better than you or I (and it very well may be that past-WotC's intent was closer to how what we are saying, but the specific wording of their license did not adequately capture that as Caerwyn is saying). Secondly, the OGL has NOT been updated yet (well other than some trivial language clean up between 1.0 and 1.0a twenty years ago), so your last question makes no sense at all.
Besides there has been no indication either way whether WotC will or will not try to claim v1.0a is no longer valid as opposed to trying to use the "benefits outweigh the restrictions" method to entice publishers to use the updated one. It's all pure speculation and frankly arguing in circles for several pages now, including you confidently assuming there is no lawyer when one had already clearly stated several times that they are, and then asking inapplicable rhetorical questions like this. Might be time to just take a step back for now, and again, I'm saying this as someone who (generally) agrees with you on this matter.
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
I already did that. But to restate - what you call the “old OGL” is not a contract - it is an offer to make a contract, with, as set forth in paragraph 3, is accepted upon using OGC content for that OGC content. The offer alone is not binding on anyone - it only becomes binding once accepted and only is binding as to that particular contract. That is the basic fundamental of how a contract comes into existence - you need offer and acceptance. Without both, there is no contract and no rights conferred on either party.
An offer can be revoked by the person making an offer at any time - that is basic contract law as well.
Technically, they are not revoking any licenses - those licenses only exist when there is both offer and acceptance, and anyone’s use of OGC content under where they formed the contract under 1.0 has the 1.0 rights in perpetuity. But, once that offer (again, the document is a non-binding offer until actualised) is revoked and a new offer is put on the table, the prior offer ceases to exist and therefore cannot be accepted. As such, you could no longer have an offer and acceptance under the 1.0 terms and therefore cannot form new 1.0 contracts.
Okay. I think I understand most of it, but there's a point I would like clarification on.
So people that have already published stuff using the 1.0 version can keep that stuff up. They don't have to take it down, because once the contract is formed, it's permanent. Does that only apply to stuff that's already been published, or does it apply to all future products produced by a person that's agreed to an used the OGL? In other words, in the future, will you be able to continue using the 1.0 version of the OGL if you've already published content under it, or will you be forced to use the 1.1 version? Will people that haven't used the 1.0 version be forced to use the 1.1 version once it comes out?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
I already did that. But to restate - what you call the “old OGL” is not a contract - it is an offer to make a contract, with, as set forth in paragraph 3, is accepted upon using OGC content for that OGC content. The offer alone is not binding on anyone - it only becomes binding once accepted and only is binding as to that particular contract. That is the basic fundamental of how a contract comes into existence - you need offer and acceptance. Without both, there is no contract and no rights conferred on either party.
An offer can be revoked by the person making an offer at any time - that is basic contract law as well.
Technically, they are not revoking any licenses - those licenses only exist when there is both offer and acceptance, and anyone’s use of OGC content under where they formed the contract under 1.0 has the 1.0 rights in perpetuity. But, once that offer (again, the document is a non-binding offer until actualised) is revoked and a new offer is put on the table, the prior offer ceases to exist and therefore cannot be accepted. As such, you could no longer have an offer and acceptance under the 1.0 terms and therefore cannot form new 1.0 contracts.
Okay. I think I understand most of it, but there's a point I would like clarification on.
So people that have already published stuff using the 1.0 version can keep that stuff up. They don't have to take it down, because once the contract is formed, it's permanent. Does that only apply to stuff that's already been published, or does it apply to all future products produced by a person that's agreed to an used the OGL? In other words, in the future, will you be able to continue using the 1.0 version of the OGL if you've already published content under it, or will you be forced to use the 1.1 version? Will people that haven't used the 1.0 version be forced to use the 1.1 version once it comes out?
2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.
3.Offer and Acceptance: By Using theOpen Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License.
Under paragraph two, the license is being applied only to the open game content that is being used with the notice and other requirements--something that does not exist does not have the license applied to it yet, because it cannot contain the requisite language for applicability. As such, new content is going to have to be made under 1.1 because 1.0 did not apply, and therefore you did not form an offer and acceptance for the new content.
That is all but certainly why they included phrase "the Open Game Content" in Paragraph 2 and other areas of the license--they wanted to differentiate "the" content covered by the contract from OGC content as a general category. When referring to Open Game Content as an esoteric idea defined by the terms, they never call it "the" Open Game Content; they only call it "Open Game Content". Whenever they talk about the Open Game Content covered by the license, it is always "the Open Game Content"--as in they are talking about "the" specifically licensed version of the Open Game Content covered by the contract.
If I may indulge in a slight rant, this, in my opinion, is really bad legal writing. I would not say it is vague in the legal definition of the term, but I find it a tad frustrating for the reader to comprehend. If it were my writing, would have probably written it as "The Licensed Open Game Content", including an extra word beyond "the" to indicate I am talking about something other than generalized OGC, and I would have explicitly defined what "The Licensed Open Game Content" meant so everyone was very clear what it was referencing.
Are the last 4 pages of this even relevant to the OP? I honestly can't tell. It seems like most of you are either angry on behalf of other people who may or may not be angry themselves, or arguing about a bunch of arcane legal mumbo-jumbo that seems 1) to still be in development and 2) that none of you are privy to. Maybe wait until the actual terms become public?
Are the last 4 pages of this even relevant to the OP? I honestly can't tell. It seems like most of you are either angry on behalf of other people who may or may not be angry themselves, or arguing about a bunch of arcane legal mumbo-jumbo that seems 1) to still be in development and 2) that none of you are privy to. Maybe wait until the actual terms become public?
I guess that is my fault. I thought the OGL was relevant to how D&D works within the market.
Those "money grubbing leeches" are people who are writers, artists, and programmers earning a living by creating content related to D&D (yes, that also includes the managers and accountants and marketers and janitors that support the Creatives). And that's not just the books, that's also building and maintaining the websites. Given the number of options and interactions available, just building a character-creator involves a whole lot of programmer hours, and it needs to be re-worked every time new content comes out to make sure everything interacts correctly with everything that came before.
If you want to play P&P with nothing but the core rules, just buy the books and play around your kitchen table. If you don't care for specific pieces of content, don't buy them. But if you are suggesting that a never-ending flow of content should all be free, I'm not sure what to tell you.
Those "money grubbing leeches" are people who are writers, artists, and programmers earning a living by creating content related to D&D (yes, that also includes the managers and accountants and marketers and janitors that support the Creatives). And that's not just the books, that's also building and maintaining the websites. Given the number of options and interactions available, just building a character-creator involves a whole lot of programmer hours, and it needs to be re-worked every time new content comes out to make sure everything interacts correctly with everything that came before.
If you want to play P&P with nothing but the core rules, just buy the books and play around your kitchen table. If you don't care for specific pieces of content, don't buy them. But if you are suggesting that a never-ending flow of content should all be free, I'm not sure what to tell you.
First of all, no, those money grubbing leeches are the executives that sit around the boardroom and make the decisions those artists, writers, and designers (and janitors) have to execute.
Second, I never said I want to play “P&P” at all, and I definitely never said I want to play “D&D” with just the core rules.
Third, I have no problems paying for quality content, that’s why I have a library of 5e books that I have paid for for my table to use, including books I don’t even actually like such as Tasha’s Cauldron and MMotM.
Finally, if there’s anything else I’ve written that you’ve misunderstood, don’t hesitate to post again, and I’ll be happy to clear the record with you.
The issue is that Wizards owns/operates/produces Magic: the Gathering, which is an incredibly predatory property well known for being deeply and unshakably anti-consumer. Wizards does M:tG aficionados dirty, basically on the weekly, and they make an egregious shit-ton of money doing it.
Why would a company that has shown itself to be ten thousand percent enthusiastically down for being Evil so long as Evil is profitable show any more regard for consumers of D&D than it historically has for consumers of M:tG?
Wizards of the Coast are not being "evil" and exploitative of their fans and customers. For one, Magic is not a game remotely related to gambling. In fact, there hasn't been any rule about gambling since Ante was removed in 1995. Anyone who says opening booster packs is about gambling just doesn't understand how the game works. People don't open booster packs because they're trying to make a profit, they open the packs because they're bored and want to be surprised by a couple cool new cards inside. If you think opening booster packs is "gambling", then I dread to think what you would say of Upgrade Packs in video games or just about any other card game ever.
Also how is Wizards of the Coast being "incredibly predatory" with MTG? They don't make you buy much - if anything - to play the game. In D&D, your group needs three expensive books and a bag of dice. In Magic, all the necessary cost is one deck per person. Most people I know and play with just buy their decks and rarely get anything from new sets, only buying a couple of packs if it interests them. Magic, like D&D, keeps adding optional expansions to itself that you need not buy. Is D&D "addictive" and exploitative and are the designers "evil" because they keep adding more cool new things to the game for fans to enjoy?
Wizards of the Coast aren't forcing you to buy their products. They aren't "bleeding fans dry". Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons are an extremely different type of product with extremely different business models. One call about D&D being under-monetized (which it is) doesn't mean that the game will become an addictive mess for gamblers. Let's keep our panic in check and avoid discussing how horrible and exploitative a game is especially if several of our points show a lack of understanding for how that games' business model actually works.
Both your points are wrong and show a lack of understanding of how the OGL is constructed. The document itself is not a license--it is an offer to form a license that does not become valid until accepted. Acceptance of the offer occurs when you use Open Game Content and it is upon that acceptance that you gain the perpetual license to use that particular instance of OGC. Nothing in the document makes the offer perpetual--only the rights are perpetual. As such, if Wizards can easily revoke 1.0 and replace it with a new offer of 1.1. Any future acceptance of the OGC will be an acceptance of the old offer; you cannot accept an offer that has been revoked.
Paragraph 14 anticipates that the document will change with time--and it establishes that, under paragraph 14, the "authorized version" (i.e. the offer presently being made to players) incorporates any prior Open Game Content of "any version" of the license, regardless of whether it is the presently authorized version.
This is not something that needs to be spelled out in the license--it is a basic set of principals of contract law and construction. Now, I will admit I can see how a layperson might be confused about all this--the language is not the most accessible to non-lawyers as it requires an understanding of how contracts actually work and come into existence to really understand how the terms interlock. But that inaccessibility does not change the underlying requirement that a contract only exists when there is both offer and acceptance; that an offer alone does not confer any rights; and that an offer can be revoked at any point prior to acceptance.
I would avoid speaking on behalf of others; I feel pretty confident that at least one of us is a lawyer who has done work with drafting plenty of contracts and who has a fair bit of experience with IP law.
I mean cool I've sold content too, and I actively still make content(that i no longer sell but guve freelly), but sure disregard what me and others say because you MUST be right
No you aren't. What I said was if they really wanted to they could legitimately just change what they call it and shit, even if you were right, and then just never use the 1.0 ogl for it
It doesn't matter what its called now the intent is pretty clear and if they have to change it, even though they probably don't, they will find a way to do so.
I have spoken with experts on this topic that have been publishing content under the OGL for two decades. They have said that the document cannot be revoked. They've published 3rd party content under both versions of the OGL and under different SRDs. I trust them over you. What are your qualifications?
By all means, if anyone here is a lawyer that specializes in this subject, speak up. But from what I've seen, none have, and I feel confident in saying that none of us are.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
Discontinued in the sense that it will no longer be offered on new products
WoTC will discontinue using it, even though any prior usage will remain grandfathered in
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)
Your experts seem to be confusing an offer for a contract as well. I don’t blame them for that, as I said, it is not the most reader-friendly document and requires specialised legal knowledge of how contracts are formed.
As to your second point, I stand by what I said - one of us in this conversation is an attorney who has IP experience. If it isn’t you, I’ll let you use process of elimination to figure out who it is.
Just in case. It is Caerwyn_Glyndwr. They are the attorney who has IP experience.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
So, can you tell us exactly how WotC can revoke the older OGL? Can they force people to use the new one, even if they have previously agreed to the terms of the older OGL? How are people publishing content through the original OGL if they've updated it already?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I already did that. But to restate - what you call the “old OGL” is not a contract - it is an offer to make a contract, with, as set forth in paragraph 3, is accepted upon using OGC content for that OGC content. The offer alone is not binding on anyone - it only becomes binding once accepted and only is binding as to that particular contract. That is the basic fundamental of how a contract comes into existence - you need offer and acceptance. Without both, there is no contract and no rights conferred on either party.
An offer can be revoked by the person making an offer at any time - that is basic contract law as well.
Technically, they are not revoking any licenses - those licenses only exist when there is both offer and acceptance, and anyone’s use of OGC content under where they formed the contract under 1.0 has the 1.0 rights in perpetuity. But, once that offer (again, the document is a non-binding offer until actualised) is revoked and a new offer is put on the table, the prior offer ceases to exist and therefore cannot be accepted. As such, you could no longer have an offer and acceptance under the 1.0 terms and therefore cannot form new 1.0 contracts.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Caerwyn is saying that people who released content before OGL 1.1 are not bound by the terms of OGL 1.1 - if you released your thing under OGL 1.0, OGL 1.0 is what applies to your thing. The OGL is not a single massive nebulous thing that Governs All D&D, it's effectively a template for innumerable individual smaller agreements that all follow the same form. Those existing agreements are unaffected by changes to the OGL and are governed by the version of the OGL they were authored under. Darrington Press used OGL 1.0 to release the Tal'Dorei Campaign Guide Reborn, as one example, and the specific license agreement governing TDCGR will not change.
Effectively, they cannot Darth Vader you - the terms of your specific deal with Wizards cannot be changed once struck.
The terms of new agreements, forged after the introduction of OGL 1.1, will by necessity use the terms of OGL 1.1. You will very likely be on the hook for feeding the same 25%+ of your gross profits to Wizards that you would if publishing via the DM's Guild, which is an enormous bite of the proceeds for any given book, and you don't get to use OGL 1.0 to avoid it. Your existing OGL 1.0 things will remain OGL 1.0 things; their license cannot be revoked. Wizards cannot look at highly successful OGL 1.0 products and say "these are governed by OGL 1.1 now, you owe us ten trillion dollars in retroactive royalties." They can, however, demand that everybody who does stuff for D&D going forward do so under much more draconian, intimidating, and profitmongering terms, heavily chilling the willingness of any given individual or company to do D&D stuff and effectively strangling the previously thriving third-party content market the current, permissive OGL has created.
Which, y'know, sucks for us.
Please do not contact or message me.
LOL
Zero royalties up to $750K. Much draconian. So profitmonger
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)
To a large extent I agree with your understanding of the OGL at least being past-WotC's intent (especially since WotC's own explanation of the OGL stated in regards to Section 9 specifically, "As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway."), but that being said, you are not doing yourself any favors. :)
Caerwyn is a lawyer and knows the legal interpretation of the OGL wording better than you or I (and it very well may be that past-WotC's intent was closer to how what we are saying, but the specific wording of their license did not adequately capture that as Caerwyn is saying). Secondly, the OGL has NOT been updated yet (well other than some trivial language clean up between 1.0 and 1.0a twenty years ago), so your last question makes no sense at all.
Besides there has been no indication either way whether WotC will or will not try to claim v1.0a is no longer valid as opposed to trying to use the "benefits outweigh the restrictions" method to entice publishers to use the updated one. It's all pure speculation and frankly arguing in circles for several pages now, including you confidently assuming there is no lawyer when one had already clearly stated several times that they are, and then asking inapplicable rhetorical questions like this. Might be time to just take a step back for now, and again, I'm saying this as someone who (generally) agrees with you on this matter.
Okay. I think I understand most of it, but there's a point I would like clarification on.
So people that have already published stuff using the 1.0 version can keep that stuff up. They don't have to take it down, because once the contract is formed, it's permanent. Does that only apply to stuff that's already been published, or does it apply to all future products produced by a person that's agreed to an used the OGL? In other words, in the future, will you be able to continue using the 1.0 version of the OGL if you've already published content under it, or will you be forced to use the 1.1 version? Will people that haven't used the 1.0 version be forced to use the 1.1 version once it comes out?
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
I am going to attempt this just to see if I am right.
Old stuff stays as is. Anything new that is published falls under the new OGL. No matter who publishes it.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Under paragraph two, the license is being applied only to the open game content that is being used with the notice and other requirements--something that does not exist does not have the license applied to it yet, because it cannot contain the requisite language for applicability. As such, new content is going to have to be made under 1.1 because 1.0 did not apply, and therefore you did not form an offer and acceptance for the new content.
That is all but certainly why they included phrase "the Open Game Content" in Paragraph 2 and other areas of the license--they wanted to differentiate "the" content covered by the contract from OGC content as a general category. When referring to Open Game Content as an esoteric idea defined by the terms, they never call it "the" Open Game Content; they only call it "Open Game Content". Whenever they talk about the Open Game Content covered by the license, it is always "the Open Game Content"--as in they are talking about "the" specifically licensed version of the Open Game Content covered by the contract.
If I may indulge in a slight rant, this, in my opinion, is really bad legal writing. I would not say it is vague in the legal definition of the term, but I find it a tad frustrating for the reader to comprehend. If it were my writing, would have probably written it as "The Licensed Open Game Content", including an extra word beyond "the" to indicate I am talking about something other than generalized OGC, and I would have explicitly defined what "The Licensed Open Game Content" meant so everyone was very clear what it was referencing.
Are the last 4 pages of this even relevant to the OP? I honestly can't tell. It seems like most of you are either angry on behalf of other people who may or may not be angry themselves, or arguing about a bunch of arcane legal mumbo-jumbo that seems 1) to still be in development and 2) that none of you are privy to. Maybe wait until the actual terms become public?
I guess that is my fault. I thought the OGL was relevant to how D&D works within the market.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Those "money grubbing leeches" are people who are writers, artists, and programmers earning a living by creating content related to D&D (yes, that also includes the managers and accountants and marketers and janitors that support the Creatives). And that's not just the books, that's also building and maintaining the websites. Given the number of options and interactions available, just building a character-creator involves a whole lot of programmer hours, and it needs to be re-worked every time new content comes out to make sure everything interacts correctly with everything that came before.
If you want to play P&P with nothing but the core rules, just buy the books and play around your kitchen table. If you don't care for specific pieces of content, don't buy them. But if you are suggesting that a never-ending flow of content should all be free, I'm not sure what to tell you.
First of all, no, those money grubbing leeches are the executives that sit around the boardroom and make the decisions those artists, writers, and designers (and janitors) have to execute.
Second, I never said I want to play “P&P” at all, and I definitely never said I want to play “D&D” with just the core rules.
Third, I have no problems paying for quality content, that’s why I have a library of 5e books that I have paid for for my table to use, including books I don’t even actually like such as Tasha’s Cauldron and MMotM.
Finally, if there’s anything else I’ve written that you’ve misunderstood, don’t hesitate to post again, and I’ll be happy to clear the record with you.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Wizards of the Coast are not being "evil" and exploitative of their fans and customers. For one, Magic is not a game remotely related to gambling. In fact, there hasn't been any rule about gambling since Ante was removed in 1995. Anyone who says opening booster packs is about gambling just doesn't understand how the game works. People don't open booster packs because they're trying to make a profit, they open the packs because they're bored and want to be surprised by a couple cool new cards inside. If you think opening booster packs is "gambling", then I dread to think what you would say of Upgrade Packs in video games or just about any other card game ever.
Also how is Wizards of the Coast being "incredibly predatory" with MTG? They don't make you buy much - if anything - to play the game. In D&D, your group needs three expensive books and a bag of dice. In Magic, all the necessary cost is one deck per person. Most people I know and play with just buy their decks and rarely get anything from new sets, only buying a couple of packs if it interests them. Magic, like D&D, keeps adding optional expansions to itself that you need not buy. Is D&D "addictive" and exploitative and are the designers "evil" because they keep adding more cool new things to the game for fans to enjoy?
Wizards of the Coast aren't forcing you to buy their products. They aren't "bleeding fans dry". Magic the Gathering and Dungeons and Dragons are an extremely different type of product with extremely different business models. One call about D&D being under-monetized (which it is) doesn't mean that the game will become an addictive mess for gamblers. Let's keep our panic in check and avoid discussing how horrible and exploitative a game is especially if several of our points show a lack of understanding for how that games' business model actually works.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.