Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
The world already implies that future content may not be allowed to use the OGL 1.0a license. So for example, this would mean things like Pathfinder wont get shut down, but they wouldn't be allowed to publish new content under OGL 1.0a. Basically meaning the same thing. They should just make it so content for OneD&D is the new OGL but anything meant for 5e is the old OGL
Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
The world already implies that future content may not be allowed to use the OGL 1.0a license. So for example, this would mean things like Pathfinder wont get shut down, but they wouldn't be allowed to publish new content under OGL 1.0a. Basically meaning the same thing. They should just make it so content for OneD&D is the new OGL but anything meant for 5e is the old OGL
Point taken, but pathfinder doesn’t really operate under the ogl anymore. P2e, according to paizo, is far enough removed that they no longer need it. They include it in their books, so other people can use their content, and are now developing a new license.
You are right though generally, it seems that when they finalize their new license, they intend to somehow withdraw this one for future products.
"Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected."
This seems that everything currently published stays under 1.0a, and implies it's not going away.
The new 1.1b or i forget what they're calling it will cover everything going forward. maybe just OneDND or stuff from a certain date.
I would count on everything going forward being covered once nOGL is released personally. That's what the language seems to indicate. Which means the community (us) will need to hold them to the major points in the spin: - nOGL has no royalties - nOGL has no license-back provision - nOGL has no affect on non-gaming expressions of any kind - nOGL does not affect content released under OGL 1.0a prior to the go-live date of nOGL.
Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast has my forbearance. Not my forgiveness. My forbearance is far more limited and conditional than forgiveness, and I WILL be watching. We have an out now.
And I'm definitely not the only one.
I'm not even against a royalty as long as it's reasonable, but they removed it so it's a moot point. Agree with #2 and curious to see what language they come up with. #3 I think is misleading, if they make OGL 2.0 more specific in terms of what it covers then some things that might be covered now under 1.0a will explicitly not be covered under 2.0 (and will instead need the Fan Content Policy etc. #4 I'm fine with.
Don't be fooled. They sent 1.1 out to creators and demanded they sign. It wasn't a draft, there was no attempt for feedback and discourse. They're openly lying. You don't have people sign drafts.
Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
The world already implies that future content may not be allowed to use the OGL 1.0a license. So for example, this would mean things like Pathfinder wont get shut down, but they wouldn't be allowed to publish new content under OGL 1.0a. Basically meaning the same thing. They should just make it so content for OneD&D is the new OGL but anything meant for 5e is the old OGL
Point taken, but pathfinder doesn’t really operate under the ogl anymore. P2e, according to paizo, is far enough removed that they no longer need it. They include it in their books, so other people can use their content, and are now developing a new license.
You are right though generally, it seems that when they finalize their new license, they intend to somehow withdraw this one for future products.
Yes, Pathfinder might have been a bad example, but it was just an example to my point. haha
Don't be fooled. They sent 1.1 out to creators and demanded they sign. It wasn't a draft, there was no attempt for feedback and discourse. They're openly lying. You don't have people sign drafts.
I just watched that.
This is is why I've been saying the statement here on Beyond means absolutely nothing. WOTC isn't backing down or backing off, merely changing tactics.
1. They all but confirmed the leaked draft was a real draft, and effectively through their lawyers under the bus by tacitly blaming them for putting forward an extremely strong initial position. From the lawyer perspective, that’s fine and very common among corporate lawyers—they are trained to deal with the other lawyers from other corporations like Kickstarter, who likewise understand “first offer” and “actual intentions” are different (and there’s often off the record jokes about how ridiculous terms are between lawyers, so a lot of animosity dissipation is behind closed doors and never written down). Ultra-aggressive openings are not my general style (though I have used them before), but I also spent half a decade in family law, where the contracts are every bit about emotion as the contents and strong handed tactics could easily backfire. Their attorneys could probably benefit from hiring some folks from non-corporate fields who might have experience with how non-lawyers/non-corporate entities might read offers and legalese.
I have never been a lawyer, but I was in sales for about half a lifetime, so I have some experience with aggressive initial offers. What I know is that it’s an art to making an offer that’s aggressive enough that when you back down you can end up where you want, but not so aggressive that you turn the clients off of the deal right out the gate. If one is to believe their line about the leaked version of 1.1 being nothing more than an aggressive initial offer, then they really screwed the pooch on that one.
Interesting, it appears that the draft was correct and that Wizards is now changing its plans. Now, corporations such as Pathfinder will not be affected by this because they published under a previous listen. It also appears that several other clauses people disliked were removed.
All in all, the group that urged people to wait before deciding whether to keep playing the game seems to have been right. Well the draft may have been accurate, Wizards of the Coast has listened to their fans and been transparent. I don't see how anyone could fault them for that. When the article says the "drafts you’ve seen were attempting to" get feedback, it really makes it feel like they intentionally leaked the doc. But anyways... I digress.
The most important part of this though is that Wizards of the Coast is listening. They are hearing our feedback and using it to build a better game, one that we can all be proud of.
None of it was a draft, they sent it to content creators to have it SIGNED like a contract. You don't have people sign drafts. Many of their talking points are outright lies or just clever wordplay. This new OGL is a trap meant to snare people into a permanent OGL that is in WotC's favor.
Have you ever drafted a contract before? I have. Hundreds of them. I send every single contract out “to have it signed like a contract” even drafts I know the other side won’t sign. Every attorney who has ever sent me a draft contract has sent me a version as if it were ready to be signed. That way we are both working with the actual terms in the final agreement, exactly as they will look when we finally meet in the middle and Party A sends to Party B a version where Party B says “no more edits, here is a signed copy.”
I'll admit that I don't work in the industry, but I can't help but feel that this is not the case when Party A is a multimillion dollar international corporation and Party B is a small independent content producer. This isn't two companies on equitable footing negotiating a contract, it's one company trying to strongarm smaller companies into signing a contract that enormously favours the larger company at the expense of the smaller.
This is a win for all except WotC and I'll take it as such. I worried a too strong pushback would force them to double down, but they did the smart thing and didn't. OGL 2.0 will be a much better document, we can all be sure of that. If they go back on today's statement, they are basically making sure not a single customer that went away is coming back, and they won't be able to legally enforce anything regarding OGL 1.0 and its possible cancelation.
It's not a win though. 2.0 is not better at all. It's just worded differently. Like a polished turd. It's still a turd, it is just shiny now.
Don't be fooled. They sent 1.1 out to creators and demanded they sign. It wasn't a draft, there was no attempt for feedback and discourse. They're openly lying. You don't have people sign drafts.
I just watched that.
This is is why I've been saying the statement here on Beyond means absolutely nothing. WOTC isn't backing down or backing off, merely changing tactics.
And then I wonder what's worse. What they're doing or what they think of us that they expect us not to notice.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Your dice hold the most unlikely successes...and the most absurd failures.
No one should trust a single word they say. They promised years ago that the 1.0 a agreement would not be altered and it wouldn't matter if you did, as people could continue to operate under the 1.0a regardless of further versions published. They deserve precisely zero trust and only a fool would give you it at this point. Publish something as comprehensively open and protected from any of "your future bright ideas" as the ORC document and they may be able to win some of that trust back. We love dnd we can continue to play dnd we don't need them to do it. You don't have a right to people stories and creativity, they do very well out of the current arrangement have they not written enough magical curses based around greed to see how this ends if you continue to poison this well.
This is a win for all except WotC and I'll take it as such. I worried a too strong pushback would force them to double down, but they did the smart thing and didn't. OGL 2.0 will be a much better document, we can all be sure of that. If they go back on today's statement, they are basically making sure not a single customer that went away is coming back, and they won't be able to legally enforce anything regarding OGL 1.0 and its possible cancelation.
It's not a win though. 2.0 is not better at all. It's just worded differently. Like a polished turd. It's still a turd, it is just shiny now.
We’ve not yet seen the new version. I mean, I’m skeptical, and it’s going to be up to them to show they’re not awful, but it’s tough to make a judgment about it yet.
Why are idiots still saying its fixed and falling for the oldest trick in the book. They ask to shit on you and hen apologize and want to piss on you instead. Its not better, its still bad, boycott. Boycott. Boycott. These liars got caught with their pants down and are trying to fix it.
NO old published maybe be fine but what about re-prints. What about things that are in the works for 5e and 3.5e, that will be published. They still want to revoke the OGL 1.0a but they think giving us what we already have is all good. This unacceptable. They can still change everything with a 30 days notice. They still get 20%. They stiil can steal all 3pp work. They still want to **** you over. Wake up.
Many of the OGL revisions they're talking about here have already been leaked and honestly it's still not good. Sure they've made some concession, which weren't really that big of a concession, but haven't fixed the core issue.
They're still trying to claim that they can revoke the original OGL by claiming it's unauthorized for new content. Sure older OGL content can still be sold, but they're still trying to force everyone to use the new OGL moving forward.
They're claiming that they won't steal any creator's content for themselves without permission under the new OGL, but by signing the new OGL you automatically give them permission to steal your work.
They're claiming that the new OGL was intended to cover things like NFTs and abuse of their IP, but that never had anything to do with the OGL. No one is arguing that WotC owns the D&D IP, that's why some things are never available outside of official D&D products, IP like Beholders, Faerun, Tasha, and Mordenkinen, etc. The purpose of the OGL was only to allow third party creators to make content that is compatible with D&D and can use the same systems and terminology for game mechanics, that's it.
The fact is, WotC is just screwing themselves over with all this. No one will want to sign the new OGL and they won't be able to get rid of the old OGL because the old OGL was, and still is, a legal and perpetual license. In fact they were never able to stop older OGL content in the first place and were simply hoping to strongarm people into following them. And more then likely they won't be able to stop future content creators from continuing to use the old OGL to continue creating compatible content. Because again, the old OGL is still a legal and perpetual license, they can call it unauthorized all they want but there's over 20 years of precedent that shows it's very much an authorized license. If they try to push this point companies like Paizo will be more then happy to take them to court over this where they will more then likely lose big time. (Not that it will matter once Paizo releases their own Open RPG Creators License. )
I have never been a lawyer, but I was in sales for about half a lifetime, so I have some experience with aggressive initial offers. What I know is that it’s an art to making an offer that’s aggressive enough that when you back down you can end up where you want, but not so aggressive that you turn the clients off of the deal right out the gate. If one is to believe their line about the leaked version of 1.1 being nothing more than an aggressive initial offer, then they really screwed the pooch on that one.
This old-school hustle culture bullshit is ruining sales. People waste so much time with it. Spend 50% more time on the deal to make 5% more profit. It's counter productive and silly.
To be clear, I'm not calling you any of those names. You're probably cool (I mean, you're here, right?). But that whole old-school idea of sales is so outdated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They also need clarify this line
Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.
The world already implies that future content may not be allowed to use the OGL 1.0a license. So for example, this would mean things like Pathfinder wont get shut down, but they wouldn't be allowed to publish new content under OGL 1.0a. Basically meaning the same thing. They should just make it so content for OneD&D is the new OGL but anything meant for 5e is the old OGL
I will love to see go to court, WOTC can lose more than what they think on this, only need 1 judge
Point taken, but pathfinder doesn’t really operate under the ogl anymore. P2e, according to paizo, is far enough removed that they no longer need it. They include it in their books, so other people can use their content, and are now developing a new license.
You are right though generally, it seems that when they finalize their new license, they intend to somehow withdraw this one for future products.
I'm not even against a royalty as long as it's reasonable, but they removed it so it's a moot point. Agree with #2 and curious to see what language they come up with. #3 I think is misleading, if they make OGL 2.0 more specific in terms of what it covers then some things that might be covered now under 1.0a will explicitly not be covered under 2.0 (and will instead need the Fan Content Policy etc. #4 I'm fine with.
https://youtu.be/HjbBuZafv4c
Don't be fooled. They sent 1.1 out to creators and demanded they sign. It wasn't a draft, there was no attempt for feedback and discourse. They're openly lying. You don't have people sign drafts.
Yes, Pathfinder might have been a bad example, but it was just an example to my point. haha
Just gonna drop this here.
https://youtu.be/HjbBuZafv4c
In case you didn't click the link a few posts above.
I just watched that.
This is is why I've been saying the statement here on Beyond means absolutely nothing. WOTC isn't backing down or backing off, merely changing tactics.
I have never been a lawyer, but I was in sales for about half a lifetime, so I have some experience with aggressive initial offers. What I know is that it’s an art to making an offer that’s aggressive enough that when you back down you can end up where you want, but not so aggressive that you turn the clients off of the deal right out the gate. If one is to believe their line about the leaked version of 1.1 being nothing more than an aggressive initial offer, then they really screwed the pooch on that one.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
nevermind...i just missed it on the second reading
I'll admit that I don't work in the industry, but I can't help but feel that this is not the case when Party A is a multimillion dollar international corporation and Party B is a small independent content producer. This isn't two companies on equitable footing negotiating a contract, it's one company trying to strongarm smaller companies into signing a contract that enormously favours the larger company at the expense of the smaller.
If I could do a thanos meme here I could
It's not a win though. 2.0 is not better at all. It's just worded differently. Like a polished turd. It's still a turd, it is just shiny now.
And then I wonder what's worse. What they're doing or what they think of us that they expect us not to notice.
Your dice hold the most unlikely successes...and the most absurd failures.
No one should trust a single word they say. They promised years ago that the 1.0 a agreement would not be altered and it wouldn't matter if you did, as people could continue to operate under the 1.0a regardless of further versions published. They deserve precisely zero trust and only a fool would give you it at this point. Publish something as comprehensively open and protected from any of "your future bright ideas" as the ORC document and they may be able to win some of that trust back. We love dnd we can continue to play dnd we don't need them to do it. You don't have a right to people stories and creativity, they do very well out of the current arrangement have they not written enough magical curses based around greed to see how this ends if you continue to poison this well.
We’ve not yet seen the new version. I mean, I’m skeptical, and it’s going to be up to them to show they’re not awful, but it’s tough to make a judgment about it yet.
Why are idiots still saying its fixed and falling for the oldest trick in the book. They ask to shit on you and hen apologize and want to piss on you instead. Its not better, its still bad, boycott. Boycott. Boycott. These liars got caught with their pants down and are trying to fix it.
NO old published maybe be fine but what about re-prints. What about things that are in the works for 5e and 3.5e, that will be published. They still want to revoke the OGL 1.0a but they think giving us what we already have is all good. This unacceptable. They can still change everything with a 30 days notice. They still get 20%. They stiil can steal all 3pp work. They still want to **** you over. Wake up.
Many of the OGL revisions they're talking about here have already been leaked and honestly it's still not good. Sure they've made some concession, which weren't really that big of a concession, but haven't fixed the core issue.
They're still trying to claim that they can revoke the original OGL by claiming it's unauthorized for new content. Sure older OGL content can still be sold, but they're still trying to force everyone to use the new OGL moving forward.
They're claiming that they won't steal any creator's content for themselves without permission under the new OGL, but by signing the new OGL you automatically give them permission to steal your work.
They're claiming that the new OGL was intended to cover things like NFTs and abuse of their IP, but that never had anything to do with the OGL. No one is arguing that WotC owns the D&D IP, that's why some things are never available outside of official D&D products, IP like Beholders, Faerun, Tasha, and Mordenkinen, etc. The purpose of the OGL was only to allow third party creators to make content that is compatible with D&D and can use the same systems and terminology for game mechanics, that's it.
The fact is, WotC is just screwing themselves over with all this. No one will want to sign the new OGL and they won't be able to get rid of the old OGL because the old OGL was, and still is, a legal and perpetual license. In fact they were never able to stop older OGL content in the first place and were simply hoping to strongarm people into following them. And more then likely they won't be able to stop future content creators from continuing to use the old OGL to continue creating compatible content. Because again, the old OGL is still a legal and perpetual license, they can call it unauthorized all they want but there's over 20 years of precedent that shows it's very much an authorized license. If they try to push this point companies like Paizo will be more then happy to take them to court over this where they will more then likely lose big time. (Not that it will matter once Paizo releases their own Open RPG Creators License. )
Sylnache Ashrain - 7th Sojourn
This old-school hustle culture bullshit is ruining sales. People waste so much time with it. Spend 50% more time on the deal to make 5% more profit. It's counter productive and silly.
To be clear, I'm not calling you any of those names. You're probably cool (I mean, you're here, right?). But that whole old-school idea of sales is so outdated.