It's safe to say that the OGL decreased innovation, but it's also safe to say that the OGL increased opportunities for third party creators to not only create but get paid to create, which is my point.
I... don't actually care? The stuff that's actually worth anything could have been published without the OGL.
Well, I care.
I like having a diversity of creators from which to choose, and I like having a diversity of content from which to choose.
That literally does not matter. As a Corporate entity, Hasbro and WotC are distinct entities from the people running them. New owners and leaders dp not have free reign to abandon their promises and commitments - there's no provision for, "We don't like the contract the last guy wrote, so we're just going to ignore the contents and declare it void, despite lacking the power to do so."
Some people are talking about legal right to act. Others, about morality. The legal issues are something to be sorted out in court, if it ever gets there.
As for the moral issues, though, that is on the people. The company, as an entity cannot lie or tell the truth. Its leadership can, individual execs, directors, the entire board collectively. For the current management to be lying about what 'they' meant 20 years ago, they would have to be the same people.
Legally speaking, in the US, corporate entities absolutely get treated as individual entities in a lot of ways - for better or worse.
A company can absolutely be held morally accountable for actions taken on behalf of the company or in pursuit of its goals. Or in this case, a companies debts and obligations are associated with the company. If the company defaults on a debt, it is responsible. If a company fails to honor a contract, it is responsible. A company can lie, and be dishonest.
It's leadership may also be personally responsible in addition - but the idea that the obligations of a company change because it's leadership changed is, in the US at least, laughable.
It's safe to say that the OGL decreased innovation, but it's also safe to say that the OGL increased opportunities for third party creators to not only create but get paid to create, which is my point.
I... don't actually care? The stuff that's actually worth anything could have been published without the OGL.
Were you around during TSR in the 90s? Litigious TSR in the 90s? The Litigious TSR that sent Cease and Desist letters to fan sites that published material that could be played with 1E and 2E D&D? The one that was involved in so many lawsuits against anybody including fans who published sites on a burgeoning young internet with free content to use with your AD&D products you bought?
That TSR which was bought out by Wizards of the Coast?
Because all of that explains why OGL 1.0a went in place and why it has been so important for a couple of decades, not to mention why so many people are on the brink over this because lawsuits incoming and everybody knows he who has the gold makes the rules for winning or losing lawsuits.
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.
And for anybody interested, here is the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a:
Section 7 from OGL 1.0:
"Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Section 7 from OGL 1.0a:
"Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Did you catch the difference? Yeah, that's right, these three words were added to OGL 1.0a:
"or Registered Trademark"
That is the extent of ALL changes to the OGL in authorized versions of the OGL during more than 22 years of history. I would further note that both OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a are still authorized versions of the OGL.
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.
You're not going to win the internet, sorry, by playing the sorts of games clowns on Twitter and Reddit play day after day. If disingenuity is all you have, you're not a winner. You're that word beginning with "l" that means the opposite of that.
I'm not trying to "win" anything, only to temper your expectations. Declaring arguments or analogies you don't like to be "lame" is not a rebuttal of any kind.
It was explained to you that your analogy did not make sense. Third party producers are NOT to WoTC what Burger King and Wendy's are to McDonald's. It was explained why your analogy was lame.
Were you around during TSR in the 90s? Litigious TSR in the 90s? The Litigious TSR that sent Cease and Desist letters to fan sites that published material that could be played with 1E and 2E D&D? The one that was involved in so many lawsuits against anybody including fans who published sites on a burgeoning young internet with free content to use with your AD&D products you bought?
Yes, I was. A sane fan content policy is absolutely desirable, but that's not what the OGL is.
That is the extent of ALL changes to the OGL in authorized versions of the OGL during more than 22 years of history. I would further note that both OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a are still authorized versions of the OGL.
And? Times change. We didn't have VR or AI or any number of other technologies 22 years ago either. That they didn't have a compelling reason to deauthorize back then has no bearing on their ability to do so now.
That is the extent of ALL changes to the OGL in authorized versions of the OGL during more than 22 years of history. I would further note that both OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a are still authorized versions of the OGL.
And? Times change. We didn't have VR or AI or any number of other technologies 22 years ago either. That they didn't have a compelling reason to deauthorize back then has no bearing on their ability to do so now.
We absolutely had VR (not in the home much, but it existed and was known and the concept was present in popular media) and what is being called "AI" in the context of realistic DnD scenarios 22 years ago.
Using something like ChatGPT for commercial DMing was likely never something that was being pursued - but something that is sufficiently scripted to run a game for video game players? Absolutely possible today, and 22 years ago.
Smartphones may have been unthinkable then, but DnD videogames and electronic GMing and gameplay tools were absolutely a thing they could have addressed if they wanted.
And? Times change. We didn't have VR or AI or any number of other technologies 22 years ago either. That they didn't have a compelling reason to deauthorize back then has no bearing on their ability to do so now.
To be fair, Wizards did have a compelling reason to deauthorize back in 2008 (when 4e came out) and didn't do so, so it's likely that at the time they thought they couldn't.
Were you around during TSR in the 90s? Litigious TSR in the 90s? The Litigious TSR that sent Cease and Desist letters to fan sites that published material that could be played with 1E and 2E D&D? The one that was involved in so many lawsuits against anybody including fans who published sites on a burgeoning young internet with free content to use with your AD&D products you bought?
Yes, I was. A sane fan content policy is absolutely desirable, but that's not what the OGL is.
But publishing material on your own site with OGL 1.0a embedded makes it OGC, and not subject to any fan policy. And based upon the arguments that WotC has no power to deauthorize or revoke OGL 1.0a, this will still hold true after they get done doing whatever it is they are going to do for all OGC released under OGL 1.0a, including SRD 5.1. I still have my copy of SRD 5.1 with OGL 1.0a embedded, and that will never go away as I ahve it stashed in so many places I can never lose it.
WotC will have a decision to make should people decide to go ahead and release SRD 5.1 based material under OGL 1.0a after they do whatever it is they are going to do. Do they want endless lawsuits, or do they go another way. It's up to them, really, because most creators I know are adament, WotC does not have the power to revoke OGL 1.0a no matter what they try to do.
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.
But publishing material on your own site with OGL 1.0a embedded makes it OGC, and not subject to any fan policy.
Incorrect. Whether your material contains the OGL has zero relevance to whether it has to comply with WotC licenses. What matters is if it contains licensed material -- i.e. the SRD. If it does, it has to comply with the license on that material. If it doesn't, it doesn't have to.
But publishing material on your own site with OGL 1.0a embedded makes it OGC, and not subject to any fan policy.
Incorrect. Whether your material contains the OGL has zero relevance to whether it has to comply with WotC licenses. What matters is if it contains licensed material -- i.e. the SRD. If it does, it has to comply with the license on that material. If it doesn't, it doesn't have to.
Publishing it publicly under OGL 1.0a makes it licensed material. It is complying with the license it is released under. WotC's "Fan policy" has nothing to do with it. So long as it only uses OGC and unique new content, it complies with OLG 1.0a.
I don't get what part of that you do not understand
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.
Publishing it publicly under OGL 1.0a makes it licensed material. It is complying with the license it is released under. WotC's "Fan policy" has nothing to do with it. So long as it only uses OGC and unique new content, it complies with OLG 1.0a.
I don't get what part of that you do not understand
That's not what you actually said before, but it's also irrelevant to my point. My point is: WotC did not need to release anything under the OGL, the could have solved the TSR problems by simply issuing a sane fan content policy.
On your point: if WotC withdraws the OGL from the SRD (assuming they can do so, which is legally uncertain), anything in it is no longer OGC, and therefore you can no longer include it. The fact that you also included the OGL is no longer relevant.
Is that why you were arguing against things I wasn't arguing in the first place?
And I didn't simply declare that analogy to be "lame." I also provided a much more accurate analogy of what is happening and you rather curiously didn't respond to that. In fact, your almost every reply to me is you excising most of the post you are responding to just so you can respond as snidely as ever to something that's not even the post's main point.
Speaking of what's curious, I'm genuinely curious to know ...
I wonder how many of those in these threads singing the praises of Wizards for its mere rhetoric of inclusivity buy books by and support those in the OSR movement who are LGBT?
Probably close to none.
1) I clean up quotes because it makes posts and replies easier to read.
2) Your "protection from greed" analogy is little more than an Appeal to Emotion, and like the license it's analogizing, is poorly designed. If you're going to have something truly irrevocable and immutable to stand the test of time, it should also be very specific in what it covers and doesn't cover. 1.0a doesn't do that, so ending it is sensible, no matter how unfair you consider it to be.
3) I couldn't care less about OSR; I don't even go back to 3.5 design anymore much less anything based on what came before it.
3 So mere rhetoric of inclusivity holds more value to you than actually supporting LGBT individuals in the hobby. Thanks for clarifying.
He's providing LGBT members of the OSR community exactly the same amount of support as non-LGBT: none. There's really no bias to not supporting a subset of a community when you're ignoring the entire community.
No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
No. He's showing that even if his argument holds and OGL 1.0a is banished and those making games and products for that community can no longer do so that he doesn't care if marginalized makers of such within that community are now out of luck and out of work.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
I am referring to the possibility of Wizards' using 6f to destroy a publisher because a bunch of mind-readers "just know" some publisher must be a terrible person because he attended a lecture by some public figure those prone to hyperbolic emotionally-driven hypotheticals in defense of 6f consider a monster and have then gone and lobbied and bullied Wizards into doing so.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Well, I care.
I like having a diversity of creators from which to choose, and I like having a diversity of content from which to choose.
Legally speaking, in the US, corporate entities absolutely get treated as individual entities in a lot of ways - for better or worse.
A company can absolutely be held morally accountable for actions taken on behalf of the company or in pursuit of its goals. Or in this case, a companies debts and obligations are associated with the company. If the company defaults on a debt, it is responsible. If a company fails to honor a contract, it is responsible. A company can lie, and be dishonest.
It's leadership may also be personally responsible in addition - but the idea that the obligations of a company change because it's leadership changed is, in the US at least, laughable.
Were you around during TSR in the 90s? Litigious TSR in the 90s? The Litigious TSR that sent Cease and Desist letters to fan sites that published material that could be played with 1E and 2E D&D? The one that was involved in so many lawsuits against anybody including fans who published sites on a burgeoning young internet with free content to use with your AD&D products you bought?
That TSR which was bought out by Wizards of the Coast?
Because all of that explains why OGL 1.0a went in place and why it has been so important for a couple of decades, not to mention why so many people are on the brink over this because lawsuits incoming and everybody knows he who has the gold makes the rules for winning or losing lawsuits.
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.
And for anybody interested, here is the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a:
Section 7 from OGL 1.0:
"Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Section 7 from OGL 1.0a:
"Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity. You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark. The use of any Product Identity in Open Game Content does not constitute a challenge to the ownership of that Product Identity. The owner of any Product Identity used in Open Game Content shall retain all rights, title and interest in and to that Product Identity."
Did you catch the difference? Yeah, that's right, these three words were added to OGL 1.0a:
"or Registered Trademark"
That is the extent of ALL changes to the OGL in authorized versions of the OGL during more than 22 years of history. I would further note that both OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a are still authorized versions of the OGL.
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.
It was explained to you that your analogy did not make sense. Third party producers are NOT to WoTC what Burger King and Wendy's are to McDonald's. It was explained why your analogy was lame.
Yes, I was. A sane fan content policy is absolutely desirable, but that's not what the OGL is.
Don't know whose analogy that was, but it wasn't mine..
And? Times change. We didn't have VR or AI or any number of other technologies 22 years ago either. That they didn't have a compelling reason to deauthorize back then has no bearing on their ability to do so now.
We absolutely had VR (not in the home much, but it existed and was known and the concept was present in popular media) and what is being called "AI" in the context of realistic DnD scenarios 22 years ago.
Using something like ChatGPT for commercial DMing was likely never something that was being pursued - but something that is sufficiently scripted to run a game for video game players? Absolutely possible today, and 22 years ago.
Smartphones may have been unthinkable then, but DnD videogames and electronic GMing and gameplay tools were absolutely a thing they could have addressed if they wanted.
To be fair, Wizards did have a compelling reason to deauthorize back in 2008 (when 4e came out) and didn't do so, so it's likely that at the time they thought they couldn't.
But publishing material on your own site with OGL 1.0a embedded makes it OGC, and not subject to any fan policy. And based upon the arguments that WotC has no power to deauthorize or revoke OGL 1.0a, this will still hold true after they get done doing whatever it is they are going to do for all OGC released under OGL 1.0a, including SRD 5.1. I still have my copy of SRD 5.1 with OGL 1.0a embedded, and that will never go away as I ahve it stashed in so many places I can never lose it.
WotC will have a decision to make should people decide to go ahead and release SRD 5.1 based material under OGL 1.0a after they do whatever it is they are going to do. Do they want endless lawsuits, or do they go another way. It's up to them, really, because most creators I know are adament, WotC does not have the power to revoke OGL 1.0a no matter what they try to do.
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.
Incorrect. Whether your material contains the OGL has zero relevance to whether it has to comply with WotC licenses. What matters is if it contains licensed material -- i.e. the SRD. If it does, it has to comply with the license on that material. If it doesn't, it doesn't have to.
Publishing it publicly under OGL 1.0a makes it licensed material. It is complying with the license it is released under. WotC's "Fan policy" has nothing to do with it. So long as it only uses OGC and unique new content, it complies with OLG 1.0a.
I don't get what part of that you do not understand
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's not what you actually said before, but it's also irrelevant to my point. My point is: WotC did not need to release anything under the OGL, the could have solved the TSR problems by simply issuing a sane fan content policy.
On your point: if WotC withdraws the OGL from the SRD (assuming they can do so, which is legally uncertain), anything in it is no longer OGC, and therefore you can no longer include it. The fact that you also included the OGL is no longer relevant.
1) I clean up quotes because it makes posts and replies easier to read.
2) Your "protection from greed" analogy is little more than an Appeal to Emotion, and like the license it's analogizing, is poorly designed. If you're going to have something truly irrevocable and immutable to stand the test of time, it should also be very specific in what it covers and doesn't cover. 1.0a doesn't do that, so ending it is sensible, no matter how unfair you consider it to be.
3) I couldn't care less about OSR; I don't even go back to 3.5 design anymore much less anything based on what came before it.
Yes, I did - I wasn't talking to a judge, was I?
He's providing LGBT members of the OSR community exactly the same amount of support as non-LGBT: none. There's really no bias to not supporting a subset of a community when you're ignoring the entire community.
So OSR content is impossible to make under SRD 5.1? Because that SRD is confirmed to be irrevocably compatible with OGL 1.2.
"1.0a should be replaced with an open license that actually spells out what it protects = you hate queer people of color!" is... a tactic, I suppose.
Most of the people left arguing against it are doing it in bad faith. Probably time to just let them vent.
And then word gets out, the community gets up in arms again, and most likely D&D collapses as everyone moves away from it. You really think, after they backpedaled so hard when the community got up in arms over 1.1, that they're "cleverly" going to use the "please don't tie us to your hate speech" clause in such a blatantly punitive way when they're already on thin ice?