The "apologies" from WotC still don't address the most important aspect. Let's make it simple.
1. WotC needs to publicly acknowledge 1.0(a) CAN never be deauthorized. 5e srd is ALREADY released under 1.0(a). They can't change that now, even for future works. I can public weekly 5e compatible books every month forever. End of story. This is the line of the sand, the non-starter, this is what gets us TO the negotiating table.
2. AFTER that is done we can debate the new OGL for OneD&D. Not before. However when looking at any new OGL THEE thing to look for is that 30 day change clause. If that is in there, the rest means nothing, as it could change anytime.
Those are the points to focus on, anything else is a distraction. Voice you objection PUBLICLY, not just in DDB surveys. 1.0(a) going to court could put other open source licenses at risk, and that can't happen, even if unlikely. Bob Tarantino, the lawyer who did a thesis on the OGL agrees a bad ruling could affect open source software license.
Yeah, but why would they acknowledge things that are wrong? If you have not accepted the 1.0 contract under its acceptance terms, it gives you no rights - it is an offer of rights to those who accept it, but does not confer rights in the aether. It does not confer blanket rights to everyone to certain 5e contents. Anyone who thinks that is wrong. Anyone trying to argue “but the intent” is also wrong - Wizards might have intended to make the contract irrevocable (and that could be a matter of debate for those already in the contract), but intending an irrevocable contract does not mean they intended an offer that could not be rescinded - no matter what certain folks might try to argue.
Nor should they go back to 1.0 - it is a terrible document that is bad for both creators and Wizards. Frankly, it is the most embarrassing legal document I have ever seen (outside of some pro se contracts), and it actively harms creators with its ambiguity and how unclear it is with regards to what rights it grants to tinge creators. Now is not the time to make a ridiculous demand like “give me back the poorly written document” - it is the time to advocate for “I want certain rights, and I want them spelled out in a way that actually lets me know what my rights are, so I am protected from you.”
I mean, or you can angrily advocate for a document even a first year law student would be embarrassed to have their name attached to, which doesn’t actually provide any clear protections and which has only worked so far because of blind luck and everyone has collectively agreeing “let’s stay out of court—this is so bad, if we showed it to a judge who knows what they might do.”
Yep. I do feel bad for some of the people involved with the movie who had nothing to do with this though. Kind of irrelevant for me since I don't really do movie theaters anyways.
I mean say what you want, it worked well for 23 years.
Because the folks using it for the vast majority of that time were making thousands. Not tens of millions. And they were doing it by selling rulebooks (as intended), not video games and apps and god knows what else in the future (AI? VR? NFTs?) It never got tested in court because believe it or not, the industry was still in its early stages.
Yeah, but why would they acknowledge things that are wrong? If you have not accepted the 1.0 contract under its acceptance terms, it gives you no rights - it is an offer of rights to those who accept it, but does not confer rights in the aether. It does not confer blanket rights to everyone to certain 5e contents. Anyone who thinks that is wrong. Anyone trying to argue “but the intent” is also wrong - Wizards might have intended to make the contract irrevocable (and that could be a matter of debate for those already in the contract), but intending an irrevocable contract does not mean they intended an offer that could not be rescinded - no matter what certain folks might try to argue.
Nor should they go back to 1.0 - it is a terrible document that is bad for both creators and Wizards. Frankly, it is the most embarrassing legal document I have ever seen (outside of some pro se contracts), and it actively harms creators with its ambiguity and how unclear it is with regards to what rights it grants to tinge creators. Now is not the time to make a ridiculous demand like “give me back the poorly written document” - it is the time to advocate for “I want certain rights, and I want them spelled out in a way that actually lets me know what my rights are, so I am protected from you.”
I mean, or you can angrily advocate for a document even a first year law student would be embarrassed to have their name attached to, which doesn’t actually provide any clear protections and which has only worked so far because of blind luck and everyone has collectively agreeing “let’s stay out of court—this is so bad, if we showed it to a judge who knows what they might do.”
We're all waiting with baited breath for you to show us all what such a document should look like. Will you put up or...
I mean say what you want, it worked well for 23 years.
Because the folks using it for the vast majority of that time were making thousands. Not tens of millions. And they were doing it by selling rulebooks (as intended), not video games and apps and god knows what else in the future (AI? VR? NFTs?) It never got tested in court because believe it or not, the industry was still in its early stages.
No one is making ten's of millions except WOTC.
Based on the public information on most Companies registers Kobold press makes between $5 million and $25 million a year. So yeah, third-party publishers are making tens of millions by using the D&D IP.
Based on the public information on most Companies registers Kobold press makes between $5 million and $25 million a year. So yeah, third-party publishers are making tens of millions by using the D&D IP.
I'm not even talking about Kobold Press! I'm talking about Deep Silver, publishers of the video games Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, both of which were explicitly created under the OGL. Two games that sold over a million copies each at a $60 price point, along with DLC, merchandise etc.
Deep Silver is a subsidiary of THQ Nordic, a company worth over 50 billion Euros. They don't need a damn OGL to make a video game, they can afford an actual big boy license.
Based on the public information on most Companies registers Kobold press makes between $5 million and $25 million a year. So yeah, third-party publishers are making tens of millions by using the D&D IP.
I'm not even talking about Kobold Press! I'm talking about Deep Silver, publishers of the video games Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, both of which were explicitly created under the OGL. Two games that sold over a million copies each at a $60 price point, along with DLC, merchandise etc.
Deep Silver is a subsidiary of THQ Nordic, a company worth over 50 billion Euros. They don't need a damn OGL to make a video game, they can afford an actual big boy license.
Based on the public information on most Companies registers Kobold press makes between $5 million and $25 million a year. So yeah, third-party publishers are making tens of millions by using the D&D IP.
I'm not even talking about Kobold Press! I'm talking about Deep Silver, publishers of the video games Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, both of which were explicitly created under the OGL. Two games that sold over a million copies each at a $60 price point, along with DLC, merchandise etc.
Deep Silver is a subsidiary of THQ Nordic, a company worth over 50 billion Euros. They don't need a damn OGL to make a video game, they can afford an actual big boy license.
You don't think they got a license from Paizo to use all of thier IP?? That seems unlikely...
You don't think they got a license from Paizo to use all of thier IP?? That seems unlikely...
They sure as heck negotiated one from Games Workshop for Rogue Trader, those guys don't mess around.
Sadly, this does mean that Owlcats next CRPG will likely be PF2e, instead or 1e, just to avoid issues - there were more PF1 Aps I would have liked to see them do...
Because I'm pretty sure they have an excellent relationship with Paizo, who absolutely did 99.9% of the underlying work for the IP and mechanics that went into those games.
I'm not here to engage with Kyle. As I know he is the sacrificial lamb. What I will ask is the Chris Cao step up. So we can slap his greedy V.P. brass plate across the room.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
You don't think they got a license from Paizo to use all of thier IP?? That seems unlikely...
They're based on PF1, which does not use Paizo IP exclusively, it is based on the D&D OGL/SRD. The OGL is literally included in both games' code and EULA, you can download them yourself if you don't believe me.
Now at the time that was legal, or at the very least the OGL 1.0a is vague enough that making a video game out of it seems to be okay. But I can understand why WotC might look over at another billion dollar corporation making tens of millions off their free license and concluding that it needs an update.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The "apologies" from WotC still don't address the most important aspect. Let's make it simple.
1. WotC needs to publicly acknowledge 1.0(a) CAN never be deauthorized. 5e srd is ALREADY released under 1.0(a). They can't change that now, even for future works. I can public weekly 5e compatible books every month forever. End of story. This is the line of the sand, the non-starter, this is what gets us TO the negotiating table.
2. AFTER that is done we can debate the new OGL for OneD&D. Not before. However when looking at any new OGL THEE thing to look for is that 30 day change clause. If that is in there, the rest means nothing, as it could change anytime.
Those are the points to focus on, anything else is a distraction. Voice you objection PUBLICLY, not just in DDB surveys. 1.0(a) going to court could put other open source licenses at risk, and that can't happen, even if unlikely. Bob Tarantino, the lawyer who did a thesis on the OGL agrees a bad ruling could affect open source software license.
Yeah, but why would they acknowledge things that are wrong? If you have not accepted the 1.0 contract under its acceptance terms, it gives you no rights - it is an offer of rights to those who accept it, but does not confer rights in the aether. It does not confer blanket rights to everyone to certain 5e contents. Anyone who thinks that is wrong. Anyone trying to argue “but the intent” is also wrong - Wizards might have intended to make the contract irrevocable (and that could be a matter of debate for those already in the contract), but intending an irrevocable contract does not mean they intended an offer that could not be rescinded - no matter what certain folks might try to argue.
Nor should they go back to 1.0 - it is a terrible document that is bad for both creators and Wizards. Frankly, it is the most embarrassing legal document I have ever seen (outside of some pro se contracts), and it actively harms creators with its ambiguity and how unclear it is with regards to what rights it grants to tinge creators. Now is not the time to make a ridiculous demand like “give me back the poorly written document” - it is the time to advocate for “I want certain rights, and I want them spelled out in a way that actually lets me know what my rights are, so I am protected from you.”
I mean, or you can angrily advocate for a document even a first year law student would be embarrassed to have their name attached to, which doesn’t actually provide any clear protections and which has only worked so far because of blind luck and everyone has collectively agreeing “let’s stay out of court—this is so bad, if we showed it to a judge who knows what they might do.”
They are going to lose every fan, the movie is being boicotted, and they do nothing to avoid It!
Yep. I do feel bad for some of the people involved with the movie who had nothing to do with this though. Kind of irrelevant for me since I don't really do movie theaters anyways.
Because the folks using it for the vast majority of that time were making thousands. Not tens of millions. And they were doing it by selling rulebooks (as intended), not video games and apps and god knows what else in the future (AI? VR? NFTs?) It never got tested in court because believe it or not, the industry was still in its early stages.
We're all waiting with baited breath for you to show us all what such a document should look like. Will you put up or...
Based on the public information on most Companies registers Kobold press makes between $5 million and $25 million a year. So yeah, third-party publishers are making tens of millions by using the D&D IP.
https://www.signalhire.com/companies/kobold-press
WotC - 1.000.000.000
Paizo - 35.000.000
Kobold - 25.000.000
I'm not even talking about Kobold Press! I'm talking about Deep Silver, publishers of the video games Pathfinder Kingmaker and Pathfinder Wrath of the Righteous, both of which were explicitly created under the OGL. Two games that sold over a million copies each at a $60 price point, along with DLC, merchandise etc.
Deep Silver is a subsidiary of THQ Nordic, a company worth over 50 billion Euros. They don't need a damn OGL to make a video game, they can afford an actual big boy license.
You don't think they got a license from Paizo to use all of thier IP?? That seems unlikely...
They sure as heck negotiated one from Games Workshop for Rogue Trader, those guys don't mess around.
Sadly, this does mean that Owlcats next CRPG will likely be PF2e, instead or 1e, just to avoid issues - there were more PF1 Aps I would have liked to see them do...
Because I'm pretty sure they have an excellent relationship with Paizo, who absolutely did 99.9% of the underlying work for the IP and mechanics that went into those games.
I'm not here to engage with Kyle.
As I know he is the sacrificial lamb.
What I will ask is the Chris Cao step up.
So we can slap his greedy V.P. brass plate across the room.
It's not the arrow with my name on it that worries me. It's the arrow that says, "To whom it may concern".
They're based on PF1, which does not use Paizo IP exclusively, it is based on the D&D OGL/SRD. The OGL is literally included in both games' code and EULA, you can download them yourself if you don't believe me.
Now at the time that was legal, or at the very least the OGL 1.0a is vague enough that making a video game out of it seems to be okay. But I can understand why WotC might look over at another billion dollar corporation making tens of millions off their free license and concluding that it needs an update.