the Firefly RPG not being available has nothing to do with Disney. The company that made it decided to shut down. And this was years before Disney owned the IP
just read the "leaked document" there is no way in hell this thing was written by a lawyer, or even a law student.
As someone who has read plenty of contracts. You're dead ass wrong. Contracts look like this in draft state all the time. They likely sent it out to publishers expecting them to pushback with questions/comments so they didn't go through final editing, but that doesn't mean it isn't a true draft.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I don't know if this has been addressed, but the now leaked document does include a provision indicating that portions of the agreement, including the rights granted to WOTC for your property, do exist passed termination.
And I'm not a lawyer, but I did take business law as part of getting my degree in business admin which focused mostly on contract language. That shit is binding.
So with the leaked ogl WOTC can can terminate your ability to use the 1.1 ogl and can sell any content you made without giving you royalties.
Now there's a lot to hate about this version of the license. But I can tell you without a shadow of a doubt that the furor over this clause in particular is much ado about nothing.
Flash back to 2005. There was an airplane flick you might have heard about called Stealth. It was cheesy as hell, kind of enjoyable but totally BS. But there was an IP troll named Leo Stoller who threatened to sue Sony because he had a (spurious) trademark on the word "Stealth." Does that sound stupid to you? It does to me. You can't trademark a broad concept. But this guy had the right to his day in court. His goal was a payday.
I guarantee you, WotC does not give a damn about your homebrew campaign world. But they, like other companies whose business model depends on content publication, do care about being able to publish their campaign worlds, and they can lose a lot of money by having a spurious lawsuit push back a product release date. So clauses like this exist because they want to be able to point to that and say "regardless of apparent similarities in these two works, this person agreed to a license with us that says we can publish our works without interference."
There's a lot to object to in OGL 1.1. But this particular point is based on a drastic misapprehension of how rights assignment works and how litigious certain people are when they think they can blackmail somebody for a payday.
There is language covering the right to publish their own similar content as being their own. The right to distribute and sell content made explicitly by the non WoTC entity is a separate clause, and is explicitly mentioned later in the existence beyond termination.
Thinking like a business person the reason I would put something like this in a contract would be the following. There new shiny VTT looks like it's going to be a pain in the ass, and also very expensive, to develop content for and so they wouldn't ever want to be in a position where they are forced to de-list content.
Third party makes a piece of content and loads it up to our centralized location. We host and allow them to sell that content on our digital platforms for our new shiny VTT and other things. Something happens and either the third party or WotC terminates the license. there are provisions in the OGL for this obviously. Without the provision to distribute loyalty free WotC would have to delist and stop selling that third party content on their platform. That's bad for business generally. With this provision WotC can keep that content there despite the termination of the license, with the only actual change is now they don't have to pay you royalties.
That clause wouldn't be in the OGL. The OGL is a general purpose license. The specifics about delisting content from a creator who is removed from a central platform (like D&D Beyond) would be in the user license for the platform.
There is a section in the article on how people could be forced into binding themselves into an unfair agreement that goes something like:
"You might also arguably have agreed to it as part of signing up for an online account with Wizards of the Coast. There are arguments against the enforcement of clickwrap agreements, particularly ones that restrict your speech rights, but there certainly are clickwrap agreements that do get enforced." Underline added by me.
So, the questions now are:
Is there going to be or is there now such a line in the current agreement for a D&D Beyond account?
If not, is there going to be in the future?
I can see a scenario where one keeps a D&D Beyond account for gaming and years later getting into making their own product and finding out they are bound to give a portion of anything they make to Hasbro because their product is covered in an area that was in the agreement to use D&D Beyond.
That's a BIG question that needs an answer quickly.
Before people start commenting I am paranoid remember we are talking money and lawyers and Hasbro. Read the new OGL and watch and listen to some of the recordings of the Hasbro board and shareholder meetings.
Is there going to be or is there now such a line in the current agreement for a D&D Beyond account?
If not, is there going to be in the future?
There is right now. ToS, Section 5.2:
"5.2.License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content."
Basically anything you post to a WotC site or forum (including this one), you're giving them free reign to use. We all agreed to this provision while signing up.
Is there going to be or is there now such a line in the current agreement for a D&D Beyond account?
If not, is there going to be in the future?
There is right now. ToS, Section 5.2:
"5.2.License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content."
Basically anything you post to a WotC site or forum (including this one), you're giving them free reign to use. We all agreed to this provision while signing up.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
Joining the voices saying that if they follow through with this, I'll be careful to not support Hasbro/WotC anymore. D&D Beyond is just a small portion of what I spend on this hobby.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, as every one of us DMs who pulls back will likely take multiple players with them. The majority doesn't even have to care about the topic. It's mind-blowing how bad this decision is.
While some on this thread hem and haw, and wait for Hasbro to "answer questions" about this "unverified leak" my friends in the outside creative community who have relied on the OGL 1.0a are not waiting.
I know those small, medium, and large TTRPG content creators are right now hard at work trying to salvage their livelihoods. Some have already spent thousands on lawyer fees based on this "unverified leak." They are writing their own OGL which will overtake the industry. And even if Hasbro does nothing, even if Hasbro were to let the OGL 1.0a stand, these creators will never forget, and never again trust this soulless corporation.
Which system will rule them all? I think we all know what that looks like. It will be a system that will allow creativity without bounds.
The creatives and innovators are enraged and engaged. What you will see in 2023 is a wave of independent open game content the likes of which has only been hinted at in the past. This Cambrian explosion of open game content will gather force until it smashes upon this rotting beached whale like a tidal wave.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
Agreed.
Now, them putting that in the OGL 1.1 itself would be much further-reaching. It would mean any homebrew you publish using the OGL anywhere at all, even another site or social media entirely (which would also have to be a static PDF only even if you're not charging for it, yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed) would effectively belong to them. And even if you do make something you plan to sell, they could simply sell it themselves and pocket the proceeds without you seeing a dime by the terms of a license like this one. That is excessive and needs to change.
I can understand them owning anything you voluntarily post here (they wouldn't want anyone who homebrews here yelling about how WotC stole their ideas if they coincidentally show up in a future book) but not anything you write down under the license ever.
just read the "leaked document" there is no way in hell this thing was written by a lawyer, or even a law student.
If only Troll Lord, Necrotic Gnome, and other publishers, as well as trusted voices in the hobby like Dungeon Craft, who are taking the leaked document very seriously possessed the infinitely superior wisdom of players brand-loyal consumers like yourself.
Slow your roll.
We've been through a multi-year period where people have repeatedly used (justifiable) anti-establishment mistrust to push a particular line of BS. Verifying and being appropriately suspicious of inflammatory claims isn't "brand-loyal consumer" behavior. It's smart and self-protective behavior. People use inflammatory claims and then if you try to fact-check those claims you are accused of being a "sheep" or an "NPC" who has been programmed by the Big Bad Authority Figure to hate the bete noire of the day.
Treat other people with some goddamn respect for a change.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
Agreed.
Now, them putting that in the OGL 1.1 itself would be much further-reaching. It would mean any homebrew you publish using the OGL anywhere at all, even another site or social media entirely (which would also have to be a static PDF only even if you're not charging for it, yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed) would effectively belong to them. And even if you do make something you plan to sell, they could simply sell it themselves and pocket the proceeds without you seeing a dime by the terms of a license like this one. That is excessive and needs to change.
I can understand them owning anything you voluntarily post here (they wouldn't want anyone who homebrews here yelling about how WotC stole their ideas if they coincidentally show up in a future book) but not anything you write down under the license ever.
My read of the fan content policy also seems to indicate that it's independent of the OGL - that fan content is a separate thing that doesn't require the OGL to function. The fan content policy certainly doesn't contain any reference to the OGL.
Sounds like Hasbro and WotC are just wanting people to mass migrate away from DnD. Because if this goes into effect I can guarantee stuff like the Trove will appear again and people will just pull a Pathfinder and slap a new coat of paint on existing and new content and call it something like Damsels and Dungeoneers compatible! They aren't shooting themselves int he foot, they are loading a shotgun, shoving it into their mouth and are trying to find the trigger with their toes.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
Agreed.
Now, them putting that in the OGL 1.1 itself would be much further-reaching. It would mean any homebrew you publish using the OGL anywhere at all, even another site or social media entirely (which would also have to be a static PDF only even if you're not charging for it, yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed) would effectively belong to them. And even if you do make something you plan to sell, they could simply sell it themselves and pocket the proceeds without you seeing a dime by the terms of a license like this one. That is excessive and needs to change.
I can understand them owning anything you voluntarily post here (they wouldn't want anyone who homebrews here yelling about how WotC stole their ideas if they coincidentally show up in a future book) but not anything you write down under the license ever.
My read of the fan content policy also seems to indicate that it's independent of the OGL - that fan content is a separate thing that doesn't require the OGL to function. The fan content policy certainly doesn't contain any reference to the OGL.
The Fan Content Policy helps, but doesn't allow you to reproduce their text though - you need the OGL for that. This could even affect something as routine as answering a rules question on a forum, or homebrew that's based on anything that would have been part of an SRD. And since a forum isn't a static PDF, you can't quote anything. I get their intent here, but there's a lot that still needs clarity.
The Fan Content Policy helps, but doesn't allow you to reproduce their text though - you need the OGL for that. This could even affect something as routine as answering a rules question on a forum, or homebrew that's based on anything that would have been part of an SRD. And since a forum isn't a static PDF, you can't quote anything. I get their intent here, but there's a lot that still needs clarity.
Answering rules questions on a forum is generally going to be covered by fair use.
The Fan Content Policy helps, but doesn't allow you to reproduce their text though - you need the OGL for that. This could even affect something as routine as answering a rules question on a forum, or homebrew that's based on anything that would have been part of an SRD. And since a forum isn't a static PDF, you can't quote anything. I get their intent here, but there's a lot that still needs clarity.
Answering rules questions on a forum is generally going to be covered by fair use.
That was admittedly an extreme example - but my point is that the previous OGL gave a lot more assurance than relying on the nebulous and often-misinterpreted concept of Fair Use for protection. Especially if you happen to be one of the folks running a forum or fansite and thus potentially liable for what your users do if not adequately policed.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
Agreed.
Now, them putting that in the OGL 1.1 itself would be much further-reaching. It would mean any homebrew you publish using the OGL anywhere at all, even another site or social media entirely (which would also have to be a static PDF only even if you're not charging for it, yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed) would effectively belong to them. And even if you do make something you plan to sell, they could simply sell it themselves and pocket the proceeds without you seeing a dime by the terms of a license like this one. That is excessive and needs to change.
I can understand them owning anything you voluntarily post here (they wouldn't want anyone who homebrews here yelling about how WotC stole their ideas if they coincidentally show up in a future book) but not anything you write down under the license ever.
My read of the fan content policy also seems to indicate that it's independent of the OGL - that fan content is a separate thing that doesn't require the OGL to function. The fan content policy certainly doesn't contain any reference to the OGL.
Yes, the Fan Content Policy is 100% independent and separate from the OGL.
Also, the Fan Content Policy does not actually allow any game mechanics. So no fan created monsters, subclasses, etc. Now nearly everyone, including WotC, has ignored that aspect, but it has been in there from Day 1 and they could start enforcing it at any time.
The Fan content policy is why I have never and will never post anything game related on any WotC site.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
the Firefly RPG not being available has nothing to do with Disney. The company that made it decided to shut down. And this was years before Disney owned the IP
just read the "leaked document" there is no way in hell this thing was written by a lawyer, or even a law student.
As someone who has read plenty of contracts. You're dead ass wrong. Contracts look like this in draft state all the time. They likely sent it out to publishers expecting them to pushback with questions/comments so they didn't go through final editing, but that doesn't mean it isn't a true draft.
The EFF has chimed in:
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
That clause wouldn't be in the OGL. The OGL is a general purpose license. The specifics about delisting content from a creator who is removed from a central platform (like D&D Beyond) would be in the user license for the platform.
#OpenDND
There is a section in the article on how people could be forced into binding themselves into an unfair agreement that goes something like:
"You might also arguably have agreed to it as part of signing up for an online account with Wizards of the Coast. There are arguments against the enforcement of clickwrap agreements, particularly ones that restrict your speech rights, but there certainly are clickwrap agreements that do get enforced." Underline added by me.
So, the questions now are:
Is there going to be or is there now such a line in the current agreement for a D&D Beyond account?
If not, is there going to be in the future?
I can see a scenario where one keeps a D&D Beyond account for gaming and years later getting into making their own product and finding out they are bound to give a portion of anything they make to Hasbro because their product is covered in an area that was in the agreement to use D&D Beyond.
That's a BIG question that needs an answer quickly.
Before people start commenting I am paranoid remember we are talking money and lawyers and Hasbro. Read the new OGL and watch and listen to some of the recordings of the Hasbro board and shareholder meetings.
: added the word "the" in a sentence
There is right now. ToS, Section 5.2:
"5.2. License to Wizards. By posting or submitting any User Content to or through the Websites, Games, or Services, you hereby irrevocably grant to Wizards a worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, non-exclusive, and fully sublicensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such User Content (in whole or in part) in any media and to incorporate the User Content into other works in any format or medium now known or later developed. The foregoing grants shall include the right to: (i) exploit any proprietary rights in such User Content, including but not limited to, rights under copyright, trademark or patent laws under any relevant jurisdiction; (ii) your name, likeness, and any other information included in your User Content, without any obligation to you. You waive any and all claims that any use by us or our licensees of your User Content violates any of your rights, including moral rights, privacy rights, rights to publicity, proprietary, attribution, or other rights, and rights to any material or ideas contained in your User Content."
Basically anything you post to a WotC site or forum (including this one), you're giving them free reign to use. We all agreed to this provision while signing up.
Yeah, I was kinda going to say, there's no need to put that kind of exploitation rights in the GPL when it's in the site license already (and in literally every site license you've ever just ignored while clicking through).
#OpenDND
Joining the voices saying that if they follow through with this, I'll be careful to not support Hasbro/WotC anymore. D&D Beyond is just a small portion of what I spend on this hobby.
It'll be interesting to see what happens with this, as every one of us DMs who pulls back will likely take multiple players with them. The majority doesn't even have to care about the topic. It's mind-blowing how bad this decision is.
While some on this thread hem and haw, and wait for Hasbro to "answer questions" about this "unverified leak" my friends in the outside creative community who have relied on the OGL 1.0a are not waiting.
I know those small, medium, and large TTRPG content creators are right now hard at work trying to salvage their livelihoods. Some have already spent thousands on lawyer fees based on this "unverified leak." They are writing their own OGL which will overtake the industry. And even if Hasbro does nothing, even if Hasbro were to let the OGL 1.0a stand, these creators will never forget, and never again trust this soulless corporation.
Which system will rule them all? I think we all know what that looks like. It will be a system that will allow creativity without bounds.
The creatives and innovators are enraged and engaged. What you will see in 2023 is a wave of independent open game content the likes of which has only been hinted at in the past. This Cambrian explosion of open game content will gather force until it smashes upon this rotting beached whale like a tidal wave.
The OGL of the future will not belong to Hasbro.
Agreed.
Now, them putting that in the OGL 1.1 itself would be much further-reaching. It would mean any homebrew you publish using the OGL anywhere at all, even another site or social media entirely (which would also have to be a static PDF only even if you're not charging for it, yet another wrinkle that needs to be addressed) would effectively belong to them. And even if you do make something you plan to sell, they could simply sell it themselves and pocket the proceeds without you seeing a dime by the terms of a license like this one. That is excessive and needs to change.
I can understand them owning anything you voluntarily post here (they wouldn't want anyone who homebrews here yelling about how WotC stole their ideas if they coincidentally show up in a future book) but not anything you write down under the license ever.
Slow your roll.
We've been through a multi-year period where people have repeatedly used (justifiable) anti-establishment mistrust to push a particular line of BS. Verifying and being appropriately suspicious of inflammatory claims isn't "brand-loyal consumer" behavior. It's smart and self-protective behavior. People use inflammatory claims and then if you try to fact-check those claims you are accused of being a "sheep" or an "NPC" who has been programmed by the Big Bad Authority Figure to hate the bete noire of the day.
Treat other people with some goddamn respect for a change.
#OpenDND
From my read of the fan content policy (https://company.wizards.com/en/legal/fancontentpolicy) it appears that anything that you make under the fan content policy is allowed as long as it's FREE.
My read of the fan content policy also seems to indicate that it's independent of the OGL - that fan content is a separate thing that doesn't require the OGL to function. The fan content policy certainly doesn't contain any reference to the OGL.
#OpenDND
Sounds like Hasbro and WotC are just wanting people to mass migrate away from DnD. Because if this goes into effect I can guarantee stuff like the Trove will appear again and people will just pull a Pathfinder and slap a new coat of paint on existing and new content and call it something like Damsels and Dungeoneers compatible! They aren't shooting themselves int he foot, they are loading a shotgun, shoving it into their mouth and are trying to find the trigger with their toes.
This. And the exodus has already started.
As for switching systems, it will be soooo easy. There are so systems out there that are great fun, and easy to learn, and teach and run.
Anyone ever tried running a one page TTRPG? How about a 20 page TTRPG?
The OGL of the future will belong to no single company.
The Fan Content Policy helps, but doesn't allow you to reproduce their text though - you need the OGL for that. This could even affect something as routine as answering a rules question on a forum, or homebrew that's based on anything that would have been part of an SRD. And since a forum isn't a static PDF, you can't quote anything. I get their intent here, but there's a lot that still needs clarity.
Answering rules questions on a forum is generally going to be covered by fair use.
That was admittedly an extreme example - but my point is that the previous OGL gave a lot more assurance than relying on the nebulous and often-misinterpreted concept of Fair Use for protection. Especially if you happen to be one of the folks running a forum or fansite and thus potentially liable for what your users do if not adequately policed.
Yes, the Fan Content Policy is 100% independent and separate from the OGL.
Also, the Fan Content Policy does not actually allow any game mechanics. So no fan created monsters, subclasses, etc. Now nearly everyone, including WotC, has ignored that aspect, but it has been in there from Day 1 and they could start enforcing it at any time.
The Fan content policy is why I have never and will never post anything game related on any WotC site.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.