In 22 years of the license's existence no one has just published a game that is a word-for-word restatement of the latest edition of D&D. Because that would contravene copyright. And Wizards would rightfully pursue the matter in a court of law.
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
You are making my point, not diminishing it. 3rd party independent game makers are not what this is about. As you say, they are pretty much immune. Why would this be about them? Why would any of them even care about 1.0 let alone any changes to it? If anything, anyone driven away from changes to 1.0 may well decide to write supplements for their games instead.
It is the 3rd parties writing and publishing D&D supplements at issue. They are using WotC spell names (some might be generic enough to be ok, but many are arguably covered by copyright), spell, race and feat names and descriptions (again, some likely ok, but many covered by copyright), etc. Plus association with the product name itself.
Under the 1.0, they have access to all that for free.
WotC clearly would like the right for that to be not so open, even if just for future publications on their part.
Names are not subject to copyright. Only the parts of descriptions that are flavour - not game mechanics could be protected - assuming they are large enough (about a paragraph or more). "Association with the product name" is pretty vague bar. People could make a something and legally say it's "a supplement compatible with D&D". I could also make a phone holder with graphics attached depicting whatever I crude images I want and legally say it's "compatible with GM cars". What I can't say or imply is that it is "a GM phone holder", and likewise I couldn't say my supplement is "a D&D supplement".
What 6F seeks to do is to get creators to subject themselves and their work solely to the whims of WotC with no appeals possible. This is a morality clause, morality here being whatever Wizards defines it at the time. You could perhaps say that this is about "protecting their brand". Bullshit. Reputation obviously nothing they care about as the last month has shown. You could say this is about "protecting players", but why do players need their protection, exactly? You could also say this is about money and power, because well, WotC is a corporation, and that's really all they care about.
Why sign the OGL then? Well, It's a promise from from Wizards that in exchange for this gun pointed at your head (figuratively), they won't try to sue you for creating any content for "their" game. Given time, they would probably lose most or all of the lawsuits, but they have the deepest pockets so most creators could not afford to fight them. This way, Wizards can pull the trigger whenever they feel like it, using whatever reasoning they wish to provide (e.g. in 4th grade you wore a turban as part of a Halloween costume), and there will be no recourse. In short, whenever they deem it time to crush some content competition, it will save them tons of money to do so. For you, it will be quick and painless, your business will be gone at the stroke of their pen.
In short, this new "OGL" is nothing more than WotC deciding to play hardball. They are the biggest and strongest kid on the block, so they can't possibly lose, right?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
At this point, I'm fairly certain Kotath is just making it up as he goes along.
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
I won't argue with any of that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
In 22 years of the license's existence no one has just published a game that is a word-for-word restatement of the latest edition of D&D. Because that would contravene copyright. And Wizards would rightfully pursue the matter in a court of law.
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
You are making my point, not diminishing it. 3rd party independent game makers are not what this is about. As you say, they are pretty much immune. Why would this be about them? Why would any of them even care about 1.0 let alone any changes to it? If anything, anyone driven away from changes to 1.0 may well decide to write supplements for their games instead.
It is the 3rd parties writing and publishing D&D supplements at issue. They are using WotC spell names (some might be generic enough to be ok, but many are arguably covered by copyright), spell, race and feat names and descriptions (again, some likely ok, but many covered by copyright), etc. Plus association with the product name itself.
Under the 1.0, they have access to all that for free.
WotC clearly would like the right for that to be not so open, even if just for future publications on their part.
1 You have misread or misunderstand—or deliberately misconstrued—what I am saying. I am not talking about publishers making their own games with their own game systems. I am talking about publishers making things compatible with D&D or making their own versions of different editions of the game, including the latest. So no. I was not making your point for you. Do you not understand that someone can write a player's handbook for any given edition of the game, conveying the exact same rules within the original, but in his or her voice? Because such game content is plentiful.
2 Wizards do not own nor have they ever owned or will own terms like Fighter or Wizard, or the concept of classes, or terms like Dwarf or Elf, or that of races, or even the rules of the game. They would be laughed out of any courtroom in which they tried to argue otherwise. The only things they own beyond the name of the game are the names of selected spells and monsters and terms specific to settings of which they were the authors.
Show me an example of a spell or a monster appearing in one of these third-party supplements that would be "arguably covered by copyright" if there are so many of them?
And as far as association with the product name goes: I've never even held in my hands a copy of a book published by Kobold Press, but I know their books tend to say "5E" and not "D&D" and there is little to nothing Wizards can do about that.
They can use the descriptions (minus the flavour text), they can use the names, because these are not subject to copyright. They can say 5e because 5e cannot be copyright protected and is not a trademark. They can even say their work is "comptable with D&D" without violating the trademark. None of that has anything to do with OGL 1.0a.
OGL 1.0a gives permission for creators to also use any flavour found in the SRD they want, not just the rules themselves. In exchange, the 3rd party content creators agree to let Wizards pretend that "beholder" and all the other names on their list are their exclusive IP, and not to be used except by them, because legally this is not the case, otherwise.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
Actually, I'm certain they can even say "compatible with D&D". Saying your product is "compatible with" another's product doesn't violate trademark even if you name the trademark. Yoi just can't imply your product is a part of the same trakemark without permission, such as "a D&D adventure".
Fair enough... less familiar with trademark law.
The misconception probably arises from the OGL itself. By using the license, creators agree not to say "compatible with D&D" or use anything else Wizard's defines as part of its "product identity". Nothing in law itself prevents a creator not using the OGL from saying "compatible with D&D"
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
It was made very clear that I wasn't talking about just any other game system but games that use the rules of D&D or some variation of them.
It is utterly laughable that you accused me of playing semantic games. That is what you keep doing here because you have made up your mind about something about which you know very little and just keep backtracking and backpedaling and backing into the next wall.
Bloody heck, I took that as 'the mechanics might be....'
Look, you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, including whatever you want of me. Live well, true believer.
"In tabletop games and video games, game mechanics are the rules ... "
Oh, believe me. I will believe what I want. See below for another example of how I arrived at doing so ↓
Elsewhere you are playing semantic games and pretending someone said Wizards want to create a monopoly over the entire roleplaying game industry, rattling off as you did other game systems, when he said they want to create a monopoly over the game, meaning D&D. What's next? Are you going to now launch into some silly sermon about how monopolies can only ever be at the level of an industry as you backtrack and backpedal and back into the next wall?
And McDonald's wants to have a monopoly over McDonald's franchise restaurants. And they do. Does that make them some sort of evil megalomaniacs?
They’re a large corporation, so probably to this crowd.
Not at all comparable because those publishers are not "franchises."
Had enough of your disingenuity and sheer silliness. What you're doing is bordering on the T-word.
Ignore User.
McDonalds also didn't lure Burger King and Wendy's into the fast food business with favorable licensing on hamburgers and chicken nuggets, only to try and pull the rug out 20 years later after BK and Wendys helped grow McDonalds customer base by making lots of people like hamburgers and chicken nuggets.
It's not a comparable situation in reality.
But some people do like trying to use bad metaphors to push their points - you're absolutely correct in your judgement of their disingenuousness.
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
It was made very clear that I wasn't talking about just any other game system but games that use the rules of D&D or some variation of them.
It is utterly laughable that you accused me of playing semantic games. That is what you keep doing here because you have made up your mind about something about which you know very little and just keep backtracking and backpedaling and backing into the next wall.
Bloody heck, I took that as 'the mechanics might be....'
Look, you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, including whatever you want of me. Live well, true believer.
"In tabletop games and video games, game mechanics are the rules ... "
Oh, believe me. I will believe what I want. See below for another example of how I arrived at doing so ↓
Elsewhere you are playing semantic games and pretending someone said Wizards want to create a monopoly over the entire roleplaying game industry, rattling off as you did other game systems, when he said they want to create a monopoly over the game, meaning D&D. What's next? Are you going to now launch into some silly sermon about how monopolies can only ever be at the level of an industry as you backtrack and backpedal and back into the next wall?
And McDonald's wants to have a monopoly over McDonald's franchise restaurants. And they do. Does that make them some sort of evil megalomaniacs?
Not at all comparable because those publishers are not "franchises."
Had enough of your disingenuity and sheer silliness. What you're doing is bordering on the T-word.
Ignore User.
The principle is similar; they license out the right to use their brand image in return for considerations. Except in our case WotC is not claiming a share of the profits as of 1.2 or dictating actions, despite all the fearmongering over 6f.
You've never opened a copy of any of these games, have you? The rules might be those of D&D or some variation of them. But none of the explanatory text is simply copied.
It was made very clear that I wasn't talking about just any other game system but games that use the rules of D&D or some variation of them.
It is utterly laughable that you accused me of playing semantic games. That is what you keep doing here because you have made up your mind about something about which you know very little and just keep backtracking and backpedaling and backing into the next wall.
Bloody heck, I took that as 'the mechanics might be....'
Look, you'll believe what you want to believe anyway, including whatever you want of me. Live well, true believer.
"In tabletop games and video games, game mechanics are the rules ... "
Oh, believe me. I will believe what I want. See below for another example of how I arrived at doing so ↓
Elsewhere you are playing semantic games and pretending someone said Wizards want to create a monopoly over the entire roleplaying game industry, rattling off as you did other game systems, when he said they want to create a monopoly over the game, meaning D&D. What's next? Are you going to now launch into some silly sermon about how monopolies can only ever be at the level of an industry as you backtrack and backpedal and back into the next wall?
And McDonald's wants to have a monopoly over McDonald's franchise restaurants. And they do. Does that make them some sort of evil megalomaniacs?
They’re a large corporation, so probably to this crowd.
If you can't make the distinction between McDonald's Corporation and their relationship with their franchisees and Wizards of the Coast and its with independent publishers of games compatible with different editions of D&D, how do you manage performing even the most fundamental calculations to be made when playing tabletop roleplaying games?
I am not saying it is impossible to independently publish D&D compatible products. I am pointing out that the principle behind the license is that it allows people to explicitly publish D&D content, with a tacit endorsement from D&D/WotC/Hasbro. That’s what they call a “consideration” and in point of fact for the license to be valid another consideration needs to be offered to them in turn. That’s what’s happening in 1.2, and despite all the hysteria and carrying on, they are not trying to crush the 3PP market or be Thought Police or whatever DND Shorts has come up with this time.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Why are people even arguing these semantics here as if it changes anything, its all an attempt to move goal posts. Bottom line is WotC and Hasbro lied, they are purposely are trying to clamp down on and destroy other businesses. They are trying to grant themselves the power to revoke, renew, and modify the license on a whim in totality and on an individual basis. Go read 1.2, its all there, almost every line or statement within that seems good becomes null and void by a later piece of lawful evil text.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
The old license protected against that actually go read it.
Why are people even arguing these semantics here as if it changes anything, its all an attempt to move goal posts. Bottom line is WotC and Hasbro lied, they are purposely are trying to clamp down on and destroy other businesses. They are trying to grant themselves the power to revoke, renew, and modify the license on a whim in totality and on an individual basis. Go read 1.2, its all there, almost every line or statement within that seems good becomes null and void by a later piece of lawful evil text.
Because 1.0a is an outdated napkin contract that leaves the door wide open for bad actors to come in and tarnish the game and brand by association. Yes, WotC looked to attempting to push for several points no one in the community wanted. Thus the community pushback, thus 1.2. And yes, in a completely unprecedented and inconceivable move, they spun the events in subsequent PR. Frankly, I do not care if they save a little face as long as we get a reasonable license, and that’s what 1.2 is. Yes, there are points that could hypothetically be abused if they are acting from a position of absolute bad faith, but if they’re in that position then no terms really mean anything so it’s really a non-issue; the brand will simply be screwed in relatively short order. Given that I assume the executives would like to continue making money in the long term, I put that scenario in the “extraordinarily unlikely” pile.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
The old license protected against that actually go read it.
“In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this license to Use, the Open Game Content”. Please tell me what part of this allows them to terminate the license in the case of hate speech.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
That lawsuit is tied to a trademark dispute where WotC claims they did not let the trademarks lapse, and TSR LLC claims they did so they are allowed to use the names. If WotC wins TSR LLC will need to change the name of the product being published (and possibly their company logo).
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Edit: To elaborate, WotC purchased the old TSR years ago, which means they own any properties held by that company at that time. The TSR name itself was allowed to lapse, which is why we now have NuTSR. The state of the contested property is murkier than I’m qualified to speak to with certainty, but WotC was the last one to hold it and is asserting they still have the rights. So yes, what happens with the property is very much their concern.
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired, and made a revamped old game (yes he is still a cringey asswipe). Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Its also an example of how Wizards can demonstrate their distance from hypothetical future bad actors - call them out and go on the offense immediately.
I fully support Wizards defending their values to the very absolute limits of their capability, but that neither includes nor requires them to de-auth 1.0a. It's a smokescreen for their very obvious real goals of trying to kill competition in the digital market.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Its an excuse. Its not a reason. The OLG 1.0a already has protection against such hate speech go read it. Whats important is the rest of the document.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Its an excuse. Its not a reason. The OLG 1.0a already has protection against such hate speech go read it. Whats important is the rest of the document.
Could you kindly provide a link or cite the relevant passage if it’s so clear cut. My own search found nothing that gives WotC moderation power on anything released under 1.0a.
It's not at all similar. And as far as fearmongering in connection to 6f goes, the worst of it is yours:
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
FUN FACT #2: Any publisher can use the rules as they are not copyrightable. Wizards doesn't own the core mechanics just because they paid for the name and others can't use what is a rather small list of selected spell names and selected monster names and terms specific to D&D-original campaign settings.
What this means is all this talk of Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game is a distraction. Going on and on about hateful content to exploit the however well-intentioned feelings of others is manipulative at best.That is what Wizards are doing. Because they know it works. That is what many in this thread are doing. Because they either know it works or they don't quite understand what Wizards own and what others can do with the game.
How would any change to the existing OGL stop what Wizards claim they are trying to stop?
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Anyone ever told you how transparent you are?
I am not being facetious when I say I am beginning to wonder whether those still siding with Wizards know what Wizards are doing is wrong but just can't admit that they were.
In another thread, you were complaining about "people brandishing hypotheticals."
It is hypotheticals that have everyone in a mad rush to defend 6f.
If you're so scared of the sheer possibility that some racist twit will make some dumb racist game using the OGL, and that this is somehow going to bring Wizards into ill repute and threaten to topple them and your chances to enjoy their version of the game, then you've an overactive imagination and less nerve than even the fifth and sixth graders I teach.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
No, he used the TSR trademark which had expired. Nothing to do with Wizards or the OGL.
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
If your spelling anything out for us requires you to brandish hypotheticals despite your having been dismissive of others for their brandishing of hypotheticals, Mr. Hypotheticals, then nah, I'm good.
How is an active court case of what WotC asserts is someone attempting to use the name of one of their properties as a vehicle for hate speech a hypothetical? Being neither a civil judge nor civil lawyer, I cannot speak to the merits of either sides specific arguments in the case, but are you really going to tell me that the attempt is not at the very least an iceberg sighting, if not an outright shot across the bow when it comes to bad actors and WotC properties?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Names are not subject to copyright. Only the parts of descriptions that are flavour - not game mechanics could be protected - assuming they are large enough (about a paragraph or more). "Association with the product name" is pretty vague bar. People could make a something and legally say it's "a supplement compatible with D&D". I could also make a phone holder with graphics attached depicting whatever I crude images I want and legally say it's "compatible with GM cars". What I can't say or imply is that it is "a GM phone holder", and likewise I couldn't say my supplement is "a D&D supplement".
What 6F seeks to do is to get creators to subject themselves and their work solely to the whims of WotC with no appeals possible. This is a morality clause, morality here being whatever Wizards defines it at the time. You could perhaps say that this is about "protecting their brand". Bullshit. Reputation obviously nothing they care about as the last month has shown. You could say this is about "protecting players", but why do players need their protection, exactly? You could also say this is about money and power, because well, WotC is a corporation, and that's really all they care about.
Why sign the OGL then? Well, It's a promise from from Wizards that in exchange for this gun pointed at your head (figuratively), they won't try to sue you for creating any content for "their" game. Given time, they would probably lose most or all of the lawsuits, but they have the deepest pockets so most creators could not afford to fight them. This way, Wizards can pull the trigger whenever they feel like it, using whatever reasoning they wish to provide (e.g. in 4th grade you wore a turban as part of a Halloween costume), and there will be no recourse. In short, whenever they deem it time to crush some content competition, it will save them tons of money to do so. For you, it will be quick and painless, your business will be gone at the stroke of their pen.
In short, this new "OGL" is nothing more than WotC deciding to play hardball. They are the biggest and strongest kid on the block, so they can't possibly lose, right?
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I won't argue with any of that.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
They can use the descriptions (minus the flavour text), they can use the names, because these are not subject to copyright. They can say 5e because 5e cannot be copyright protected and is not a trademark. They can even say their work is "comptable with D&D" without violating the trademark. None of that has anything to do with OGL 1.0a.
OGL 1.0a gives permission for creators to also use any flavour found in the SRD they want, not just the rules themselves. In exchange, the 3rd party content creators agree to let Wizards pretend that "beholder" and all the other names on their list are their exclusive IP, and not to be used except by them, because legally this is not the case, otherwise.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
The misconception probably arises from the OGL itself. By using the license, creators agree not to say "compatible with D&D" or use anything else Wizard's defines as part of its "product identity". Nothing in law itself prevents a creator not using the OGL from saying "compatible with D&D"
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
They’re a large corporation, so probably to this crowd.
McDonalds also didn't lure Burger King and Wendy's into the fast food business with favorable licensing on hamburgers and chicken nuggets, only to try and pull the rug out 20 years later after BK and Wendys helped grow McDonalds customer base by making lots of people like hamburgers and chicken nuggets.
It's not a comparable situation in reality.
But some people do like trying to use bad metaphors to push their points - you're absolutely correct in your judgement of their disingenuousness.
The principle is similar; they license out the right to use their brand image in return for considerations. Except in our case WotC is not claiming a share of the profits as of 1.2 or dictating actions, despite all the fearmongering over 6f.
I am not saying it is impossible to independently publish D&D compatible products. I am pointing out that the principle behind the license is that it allows people to explicitly publish D&D content, with a tacit endorsement from D&D/WotC/Hasbro. That’s what they call a “consideration” and in point of fact for the license to be valid another consideration needs to be offered to them in turn. That’s what’s happening in 1.2, and despite all the hysteria and carrying on, they are not trying to crush the 3PP market or be Thought Police or whatever DND Shorts has come up with this time.
Has anyone ever told you your fun facts aren’t very fun?
But, seriously, let me break this down for you. A license is a tacit endorsement by the parent company of any work produced under it. Thus, under 1.0a, a person can write up any dreck they want, claim the license, and the media can then accurately report “Officially Licensed D&D Product Supports [insert hate content here]”, and that material is now permanently tied to the brand in a very real legal sense, and WotC cannot take any action to actively oppose it. That is what 6f seeks to counter. Yes, someone can still create a “compatible product”, but there is no direct official connection between the two like there is under 1.0a.
Why are people even arguing these semantics here as if it changes anything, its all an attempt to move goal posts. Bottom line is WotC and Hasbro lied, they are purposely are trying to clamp down on and destroy other businesses. They are trying to grant themselves the power to revoke, renew, and modify the license on a whim in totality and on an individual basis. Go read 1.2, its all there, almost every line or statement within that seems good becomes null and void by a later piece of lawful evil text.
The old license protected against that actually go read it.
Because 1.0a is an outdated napkin contract that leaves the door wide open for bad actors to come in and tarnish the game and brand by association. Yes, WotC looked to attempting to push for several points no one in the community wanted. Thus the community pushback, thus 1.2. And yes, in a completely unprecedented and inconceivable move, they spun the events in subsequent PR. Frankly, I do not care if they save a little face as long as we get a reasonable license, and that’s what 1.2 is. Yes, there are points that could hypothetically be abused if they are acting from a position of absolute bad faith, but if they’re in that position then no terms really mean anything so it’s really a non-issue; the brand will simply be screwed in relatively short order. Given that I assume the executives would like to continue making money in the long term, I put that scenario in the “extraordinarily unlikely” pile.
“In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this license to Use, the Open Game Content”. Please tell me what part of this allows them to terminate the license in the case of hate speech.
No, I think it’s Ernest Gygax’s attempt to use a different WotC product as a vehicle for hate speech that has brought attention to the issue
That lawsuit is tied to a trademark dispute where WotC claims they did not let the trademarks lapse, and TSR LLC claims they did so they are allowed to use the names. If WotC wins TSR LLC will need to change the name of the product being published (and possibly their company logo).
Whether or not the trademark lapsed appears to be a point of contention, and it is or possibly was for a WotC property. Do I really need to spell out why that would make them get proactive with other properties?
Edit: To elaborate, WotC purchased the old TSR years ago, which means they own any properties held by that company at that time. The TSR name itself was allowed to lapse, which is why we now have NuTSR. The state of the contested property is murkier than I’m qualified to speak to with certainty, but WotC was the last one to hold it and is asserting they still have the rights. So yes, what happens with the property is very much their concern.
Its also an example of how Wizards can demonstrate their distance from hypothetical future bad actors - call them out and go on the offense immediately.
I fully support Wizards defending their values to the very absolute limits of their capability, but that neither includes nor requires them to de-auth 1.0a. It's a smokescreen for their very obvious real goals of trying to kill competition in the digital market.
Its an excuse. Its not a reason. The OLG 1.0a already has protection against such hate speech go read it. Whats important is the rest of the document.
Could you kindly provide a link or cite the relevant passage if it’s so clear cut. My own search found nothing that gives WotC moderation power on anything released under 1.0a.
How is an active court case of what WotC asserts is someone attempting to use the name of one of their properties as a vehicle for hate speech a hypothetical? Being neither a civil judge nor civil lawyer, I cannot speak to the merits of either sides specific arguments in the case, but are you really going to tell me that the attempt is not at the very least an iceberg sighting, if not an outright shot across the bow when it comes to bad actors and WotC properties?