WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
I'm reading the new OGl draft and so far there's nothing screwy and it's better than the original OGL.
Maybe read things before going all keyboard-warrior? Helps a lot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(g) Waiver of Jury Trial.We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.
I'm not sure, but being forced to waive "any" right to a jury trial of "any" dispute, claim, or cause of action related to or arising out of this license seems a bit "screwy" in my honest opinion. What i mean by being forced to waive your rights is because OGL 1.0(a) is being de-authorized, meaning that in order to make any new content in the future under the OGL, you are required tosign this "new and improved" license.
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
It allows them to cut ties with a 3PP developer if they get arrested for **** or other crimes, not just for publishing something bad. Kind of necessary in a world where more public and semi-public personas are being exposed as creeps.
That's a good point. If someone has a Kanye-esque meltdown, you want to be able to cut ties.
Only because "Kanye-esque" is looked down upon, now. What happens when he's accepted, but someone like Mindy Kaling isn't?
WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
I'm reading the new OGl draft and so far there's nothing screwy and it's better than the original OGL.
Maybe read things before going all keyboard-warrior? Helps a lot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(g) Waiver of Jury Trial.We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.
I'm not sure, but being forced to waive "any" right to a jury trial of "any" dispute, claim, or cause of action related to or arising out of this license seems a bit "screwy" in my honest opinion. What i mean by being forced to waive your rights is because OGL 1.0(a) is being de-authorized, meaning that in order to make any new content in the future under the OGL, you are required tosign this "new and improved" license.
WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
I'm reading the new OGl draft and so far there's nothing screwy and it's better than the original OGL.
Maybe read things before going all keyboard-warrior? Helps a lot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(g) Waiver of Jury Trial.We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.
I'm not sure, but being forced to waive "any" right to a jury trial of "any" dispute, claim, or cause of action related to or arising out of this license seems a bit "screwy" in my honest opinion. What i mean by being forced to waive your rights is because OGL 1.0(a) is being de-authorized, meaning that in order to make any new content in the future under the OGL, you are required tosign this "new and improved" license.
It's pretty much the same issue as with the leaked OGL.
WotC decides what is acceptable from now on, and if they don't like you for whatever reason they can just place it under that umbrella and remove your license. No rights, no old OGL, and you can't dispute them in any way.
I don't see this as a step forward, but a repeat of a previous move.
WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
I'm reading the new OGl draft and so far there's nothing screwy and it's better than the original OGL.
Maybe read things before going all keyboard-warrior? Helps a lot. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(g) Waiver of Jury Trial.We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license.
I'm not sure, but being forced to waive "any" right to a jury trial of "any" dispute, claim, or cause of action related to or arising out of this license seems a bit "screwy" in my honest opinion. What i mean by being forced to waive your rights is because OGL 1.0(a) is being de-authorized, meaning that in order to make any new content in the future under the OGL, you are required tosign this "new and improved" license.
Waivers of jury trials are actually very common in contracts. Juries are difficult to seat and add a substantial amount of time and cost to litigation. It is common for civil trials to be bench trials where the judge is the trier of fact rather than a jury. Not commenting whether you should see it as a good thing or not, just providing context that it isn't particularly "screwy."
The thing that's boggled my mind most over these last weeks is how often I found myself in agreement with Yurei and Caerwyn.
Same, especially since I was in SHARP opposition to Caerwyn's initial take on all this.
Turns out: they're being the voice of reason here.
I'm deeply discouraged by how quickly a united front disintegrated, and I'm finding the ORIGINAL OGL OR DEATH squad really, really exhausting. It's extremely clear to me that a good number of folks here have absolutely no idea how actual business, contracts, and legal matters are handled in the real world.
And I'm super appreciative of the folks who are raising objections in calm, constructive ways. There are still things to ask for clarification or change in this new one. And there is room to say Damn, they gave us near 'bout everything we asked for.
The thing that's boggled my mind most over these last weeks is how often I found myself in agreement with Yurei and Caerwyn.
Same, especially since I was in SHARP opposition to Caerwyn's initial take on all this.
Turns out: they're being the voice of reason here.
I'm deeply discouraged by how quickly a united front disintegrated, and I'm finding the ORIGINAL OGL OR DEATH squad really, really exhausting. It's extremely clear to me that a good number of folks here have absolutely no idea how actual business, contracts, and legal matters are handled in the real world.
And I'm super appreciative of the folks who are raising objections in calm, constructive ways. There are still things to ask for clarification or change in this new one. And there is room to say Damn, they gave us near 'bout everything we asked for.
Wading through the muck of online discussions at it's finest right?
The thing that's boggled my mind most over these last weeks is how often I found myself in agreement with Yurei and Caerwyn.
Same, especially since I was in SHARP opposition to Caerwyn's initial take on all this.
Turns out: they're being the voice of reason here.
I'm deeply discouraged by how quickly a united front disintegrated, and I'm finding the ORIGINAL OGL OR DEATH squad really, really exhausting. It's extremely clear to me that a good number of folks here have absolutely no idea how actual business, contracts, and legal matters are handled in the real world.
And I'm super appreciative of the folks who are raising objections in calm, constructive ways. There are still things to ask for clarification or change in this new one. And there is room to say Damn, they gave us near 'bout everything we asked for.
Wading through the muck of online discussions at it's finest right?
Or like herding squirrels, the nasty ones, the ones that try to eat you alive...
But to the point, As I and other have said, definitions of acceptable behavior change over time, so there needs to be some flexibility. To quote Yurei, just don't be a cockwaffle, and you'll be OK.
Though you may have a point on "engage in conduct" That may a bit overbroad and could use some clarity. At least to me, who's a non-lawyer.
It allows them to cut ties with a 3PP developer if they get arrested for **** or other crimes, not just for publishing something bad. Kind of necessary in a world where more public and semi-public personas are being exposed as creeps.
That's a good point. If someone has a Kanye-esque meltdown, you want to be able to cut ties.
Only because "Kanye-esque" is looked down upon, now. What happens when he's accepted, but someone like Mindy Kaling isn't?
Then society will have shifted, and the standards for what is published will also have to shift accordingly. And Wizards needs the flexibility to be able to keep up with the times. it's future-proofing.
I get the hesitancy here to accept WotC as arbiters of what's acceptable or not. No one wants to give that power over to someone else. I'd chafe at it if I were a 3pp, just on principle. Plus, probably no two people on these boards have their red lines in exactly the same place. But I also get Wizards not wanting their brand associated with something they consider awful. And that's the thing. It's their brand. They own the game. It's their ball, you want to play with their ball, you have to use their rules. If you don't want to use their rules, cool, bring your own ball. Go ahead and make the most hateful game in hate-town. You're free to do so, you just don't get to attach the D&D brand name to it. Now, if you don't believe they should be able to say what their company associates with, then, I'm not sure what to tell you.
In the end, it will always, always, come down to an opinion, a judgement call. Even if you follow some definition made by a third-party group, it's still the opinion of that group. More precisely, the people who make up that group.
They CANNOT deauthorize 1.0a. It will go to court and I will defnitely participate.
It will, and with Paizo it’s Washington State courts which are not friendly with companies that try to skirt intent and good faith contract laws. This could lead to Hasbro sustaining heavy financial losses in fines and/or lawsuit damages, especially with the intent posted as an official FAQ for a decade and a half stating any changes to 1.0a could be ignored.
Despite removing it from their website in 2022, there are hundreds of archives of it, which are admissible in court according to the US Federal Circuit courts as evidences. In this case of intent. If a lawyer wanted to take it a step further, one could argue given the circumstances, that removal of this official FAQ is also an attempt to destroy evidence as any lawyer who works in contract/licensing who passed the Bar would have to know about good will and intent precedent, seeing as those rules are older than Hasbro themselves.
In re Paizo this is a moot point. They've stated the only things left with the OGL are what's already been sent to the printer. Everything they produce will be OGL-less or with the ORC whenever that gets off the ground and this leaves any material already published safe. Assuming 1.2 doesn't go into effect before those last products under 1.0 come to print there is little reason for Paizo to care unless everyone suddenly stops playing Starfinder or the PF2E system.
For real: the people calmly raising reasonable objections, such as the overreach in Section 6f or the idea of being allowed to seek an authorial credit rather than just monetary damages for copyright infringement? You guys are super valuable. That's exactly what we need more of. Thank you for your sincere efforts.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Reposting for amplification. This is a really good (and calm) analysis of 1.2. I agree that we need to push for explicit language promising no royalties, and to push hard for this to be irrevocable (or as irrevocable as possible).
I also think we need to acknowledge and genuinely celebrate what this article says: OGL 1.2 is a huge step forward, and much closer to what we ideally would have in any new licensing agreement.
Reposting for amplification. This is a really good (and calm) analysis of 1.2. I agree that we need to push for explicit language promising no royalties, and to push hard for this to be irrevocable (or as irrevocable as possible).
I also think we need to acknowledge and genuinely celebrate what this article says: OGL 1.2 is a huge step forward, and much closer to what we ideally would have in any new licensing agreement.
I think 1.2 is already as irrevocable as we're gonna get. No possible way we pin them down to the specific wording of a document that cannot ever evolve with the legal system surrounding it. Or rather, if we do pin them down on it then the next SRD won't be released under this license. The operative thing should be that whatever the terms you signed up under are, those are the terms you get. Period. If you had a 1.0a product, then 1.0a is your terms. If you sign up under 1.2, then 1.2 is your terms. If they need to put out a new version in the future to cover some heretofore-unforeseen bit of societal weirdness - kinda like NFTs appearing and causing nothing but problems for everyone involved - then people who published under 1.2 will still be bound by 1.2, not 1.X.
I honestly think that's the best deal we're gonna get. Ideal, no, but a shitload better than "we can change your terms retroactively any time we feel like it."
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Intent doesn't matter for spit. What matters is the words on the paper. It's why lawyers use Lawyerspeak and usually make their contracts a thousand pages long - once that agreement is signed, nothing else anyone says matters.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Why are you all so focused on 1.0a? Outside of a couple of niggle points we're trying to address in between all the people ranting like crazies about OGL 1.0a OR BUST, the new terms are more permissive than the old ones. With the notable exception that Wizards says you can't make hateful horrible products and you can't use the OGL to make a D&D blockchain game and defraud thousands of customers.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
They're not trying to prevent video games or VTTs. They want those covered by custom agreements, not the OGL. That seems like a reasonable ask to me, since those directly involve their IP and product identity.
This mania is ridiculous. You're not ever going to get them to drop this entirely and go back to 1.0a. You can focus on trying to make 1.2 as good as it can possibly be or you can protest your head off and ultimately accomplish nothing. The time for R.I.O.T. is done now. The time for dialogue and feedback is here.
We have a chance to do some real good. Why not take it?
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
I think 1.2 is already as irrevocable as we're gonna get. No possible way we pin them down to the specific wording of a document that cannot ever evolve with the legal system surrounding it. Or rather, if we do pin them down on it then the next SRD won't be released under this license. The operative thing should be that whatever the terms you signed up under are, those are the terms you get. Period. If you had a 1.0a product, then 1.0a is your terms. If you sign up under 1.2, then 1.2 is your terms. If they need to put out a new version in the future to cover some heretofore-unforeseen bit of societal weirdness - kinda like NFTs appearing and causing nothing but problems for everyone involved - then people who published under 1.2 will still be bound by 1.2, not 1.X.
I honestly think that's the best deal we're gonna get. Ideal, no, but a shitload better than "we can change your terms retroactively any time we feel like it."
Yeah, I don't think they're going to budge anymore on that than they already have. Doesn't hurt to ask, of course (answer is always no if you don't ask) but I think you're right. This is as much ground as they're going to give on this particular matter.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
My understanding is that intent matters a whole heck of a lot in a case of ambiguity, which also doesn't favor the holding party of the license. And a complete lack of 1.0a even addressing the possibility of de-authorization is absolutely ambiguous at best - I'd argue its quite clear when it can be revoked or de-authorized (IE, it can't - those rights weren't reserved for Hasbro). More qualified people than me are prepared to argue this in court, despite the uphill battle of going up against Hasbro. You don't do that if you aren't supremely confident in your position.
And seriously, people have been saying for near on two weeks now that 'fighting is pointless' and 'Hasbro isn't going to back down' - and here we are. 1.2 is clearly walking back and accommodating the community, if the community won't accept the de-authorization of 1.0a there's every reason to believe that we can push that point.
Honestly, the biggest concerns I see with this license involve attempted abuse of "having the same idea" bit or the "offensive content" bit. But those would not stay under wraps if WotC started using them as a cudgel, and ORC is already in motion to be an alternative option. Thus, given that we've already shown them our readiness to walk away if they try to abuse a license against 3rd party publishers and they seem to have believed us enough to nix their previous new license, put out a public if spun apology, and are trying to secure approval of the new license from the community, it seems like they are cognizant of the fact that they need our business more than we need their future goods or services. Thus any flagrant attempt at abuse of the license would probably just burn their own business to the ground as everyone jumps ship to an alternative.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Intent doesn't matter for spit. What matters is the words on the paper. It's why lawyers use Lawyerspeak and usually make their contracts a thousand pages long - once that agreement is signed, nothing else anyone says matters.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Why are you all so focused on 1.0a? Outside of a couple of niggle points we're trying to address in between all the people ranting like crazies about OGL 1.0a OR BUST, the new terms are more permissive than the old ones. With the notable exception that Wizards says you can't make hateful horrible products and you can't use the OGL to make a D&D blockchain game and defraud thousands of customers.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
They're not trying to prevent video games or VTTs. They want those covered by custom agreements, not the OGL. That seems like a reasonable ask to me, since those directly involve their IP and product identity.
This mania is ridiculous. You're not ever going to get them to drop this entirely and go back to 1.0a. You can focus on trying to make 1.2 as good as it can possibly be or you can protest your head off and ultimately accomplish nothing. The time for R.I.O.T. is done now. The time for dialogue and feedback is here.
We have a chance to do some real good. Why not take it?
At what point did 'hateful horrible products' ever appear? That sounds more like a strawman argument than anything, not to mention that OGL 1.2 just gives WotC a very big stick to hit 3rd party creators with for any reason whatsoever they please, considering the wording specifically states WotC's judgement is final, without any option for dissent or appeal. Even if you get 30 days to fix the issue, they can just say thati's not good enough and pull the license. That's a massive risk to sign in on as a 3rd party.
If they keep 1.0a, and open up 1.2 for anyone willing to sign in, it would take a lot of the heat out of the entire discussion.
Also, if anybody has a plan to to defraud thousands of people already, an OGL isn't going to stop them anyway.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'm not sure, but being forced to waive "any" right to a jury trial of "any" dispute, claim, or cause of action related to or arising out of this license seems a bit "screwy" in my honest opinion. What i mean by being forced to waive your rights is because OGL 1.0(a) is being de-authorized, meaning that in order to make any new content in the future under the OGL, you are required to sign this "new and improved" license.
Only because "Kanye-esque" is looked down upon, now. What happens when he's accepted, but someone like Mindy Kaling isn't?
Predatory and unfair.
It's pretty much the same issue as with the leaked OGL.
WotC decides what is acceptable from now on, and if they don't like you for whatever reason they can just place it under that umbrella and remove your license. No rights, no old OGL, and you can't dispute them in any way.
I don't see this as a step forward, but a repeat of a previous move.
Waivers of jury trials are actually very common in contracts. Juries are difficult to seat and add a substantial amount of time and cost to litigation. It is common for civil trials to be bench trials where the judge is the trier of fact rather than a jury. Not commenting whether you should see it as a good thing or not, just providing context that it isn't particularly "screwy."
Same, especially since I was in SHARP opposition to Caerwyn's initial take on all this.
Turns out: they're being the voice of reason here.
I'm deeply discouraged by how quickly a united front disintegrated, and I'm finding the ORIGINAL OGL OR DEATH squad really, really exhausting. It's extremely clear to me that a good number of folks here have absolutely no idea how actual business, contracts, and legal matters are handled in the real world.
And I'm super appreciative of the folks who are raising objections in calm, constructive ways. There are still things to ask for clarification or change in this new one. And there is room to say Damn, they gave us near 'bout everything we asked for.
Wading through the muck of online discussions at it's finest right?
Or like herding squirrels, the nasty ones, the ones that try to eat you alive...
Then society will have shifted, and the standards for what is published will also have to shift accordingly. And Wizards needs the flexibility to be able to keep up with the times. it's future-proofing.
I get the hesitancy here to accept WotC as arbiters of what's acceptable or not. No one wants to give that power over to someone else. I'd chafe at it if I were a 3pp, just on principle. Plus, probably no two people on these boards have their red lines in exactly the same place. But I also get Wizards not wanting their brand associated with something they consider awful. And that's the thing. It's their brand. They own the game. It's their ball, you want to play with their ball, you have to use their rules. If you don't want to use their rules, cool, bring your own ball. Go ahead and make the most hateful game in hate-town. You're free to do so, you just don't get to attach the D&D brand name to it. Now, if you don't believe they should be able to say what their company associates with, then, I'm not sure what to tell you.
In the end, it will always, always, come down to an opinion, a judgement call. Even if you follow some definition made by a third-party group, it's still the opinion of that group. More precisely, the people who make up that group.
In re Paizo this is a moot point. They've stated the only things left with the OGL are what's already been sent to the printer. Everything they produce will be OGL-less or with the ORC whenever that gets off the ground and this leaves any material already published safe. Assuming 1.2 doesn't go into effect before those last products under 1.0 come to print there is little reason for Paizo to care unless everyone suddenly stops playing Starfinder or the PF2E system.
For real: the people calmly raising reasonable objections, such as the overreach in Section 6f or the idea of being allowed to seek an authorial credit rather than just monetary damages for copyright infringement? You guys are super valuable. That's exactly what we need more of. Thank you for your sincere efforts.
OGL 1.0A OR BUST crowd? You're not helping. Knock it off and go play Pathfinder already. All you're doing is polluting an otherwise productive discussion on what needs attention and cleaning up in the new document(s).
Please do not contact or message me.
Reposting for amplification. This is a really good (and calm) analysis of 1.2. I agree that we need to push for explicit language promising no royalties, and to push hard for this to be irrevocable (or as irrevocable as possible).
I also think we need to acknowledge and genuinely celebrate what this article says: OGL 1.2 is a huge step forward, and much closer to what we ideally would have in any new licensing agreement.
I think 1.2 is already as irrevocable as we're gonna get. No possible way we pin them down to the specific wording of a document that cannot ever evolve with the legal system surrounding it. Or rather, if we do pin them down on it then the next SRD won't be released under this license. The operative thing should be that whatever the terms you signed up under are, those are the terms you get. Period. If you had a 1.0a product, then 1.0a is your terms. If you sign up under 1.2, then 1.2 is your terms. If they need to put out a new version in the future to cover some heretofore-unforeseen bit of societal weirdness - kinda like NFTs appearing and causing nothing but problems for everyone involved - then people who published under 1.2 will still be bound by 1.2, not 1.X.
I honestly think that's the best deal we're gonna get. Ideal, no, but a shitload better than "we can change your terms retroactively any time we feel like it."
Please do not contact or message me.
Suggesting that a company should be held to honor its contractual commitments is not an unreasonable request.
We know what the intent of 1.0a was - we have the original creators to tell us.
Attempting to de-authorize it under any justification is a bad faith attempt to weasel out of an agreement that Hasbro/WotC entered into. They can't de-authorize it - and they knew that just a couple years ago. And then tried to hide the evidence.
That's not OK.
The rest of 1.2 may be a great improvement, but none of it changes the fact that they cannot in good faith attempt to de-authorize 1.0a.
Worse, their true motives are showing in how focused they are on 'video games' and video game features in the VTT policy - their issue with 1.0a is its doesn't prohibit these.
Video games existed in the way back year of 2000. If they had wanted to prevent them, they could have. They did not. WotC appears to find this threatening - too bad, its the deal they themselves made back then.
Do you know what the contractual commitments in play are? No? Hm.
Intent doesn't matter for spit. What matters is the words on the paper. It's why lawyers use Lawyerspeak and usually make their contracts a thousand pages long - once that agreement is signed, nothing else anyone says matters.
Why are you all so focused on 1.0a? Outside of a couple of niggle points we're trying to address in between all the people ranting like crazies about OGL 1.0a OR BUST, the new terms are more permissive than the old ones. With the notable exception that Wizards says you can't make hateful horrible products and you can't use the OGL to make a D&D blockchain game and defraud thousands of customers.
They're not trying to prevent video games or VTTs. They want those covered by custom agreements, not the OGL. That seems like a reasonable ask to me, since those directly involve their IP and product identity.
This mania is ridiculous. You're not ever going to get them to drop this entirely and go back to 1.0a. You can focus on trying to make 1.2 as good as it can possibly be or you can protest your head off and ultimately accomplish nothing. The time for R.I.O.T. is done now. The time for dialogue and feedback is here.
We have a chance to do some real good. Why not take it?
Please do not contact or message me.
A party's intent only matters if it makes it into the contract. Despite what the original creators say it does not state it is irrevocable so they can indeed revoke it. I have yet to see a persuasive legal argument otherwise. You are free to take issue with that of course, but as it stands the point is WotC has stated they are not leaves 1.0a in place going forward and have indicated that matter is non-negotiable. The people in this thread are trying to work with that to get the best deal they can. WotC doesn't have to do any of this, they could have forced 2.0 down our throats. Yurei's point is exactly that.
Yeah, I don't think they're going to budge anymore on that than they already have. Doesn't hurt to ask, of course (answer is always no if you don't ask) but I think you're right. This is as much ground as they're going to give on this particular matter.
My understanding is that intent matters a whole heck of a lot in a case of ambiguity, which also doesn't favor the holding party of the license. And a complete lack of 1.0a even addressing the possibility of de-authorization is absolutely ambiguous at best - I'd argue its quite clear when it can be revoked or de-authorized (IE, it can't - those rights weren't reserved for Hasbro). More qualified people than me are prepared to argue this in court, despite the uphill battle of going up against Hasbro. You don't do that if you aren't supremely confident in your position.
And seriously, people have been saying for near on two weeks now that 'fighting is pointless' and 'Hasbro isn't going to back down' - and here we are. 1.2 is clearly walking back and accommodating the community, if the community won't accept the de-authorization of 1.0a there's every reason to believe that we can push that point.
Honestly, the biggest concerns I see with this license involve attempted abuse of "having the same idea" bit or the "offensive content" bit. But those would not stay under wraps if WotC started using them as a cudgel, and ORC is already in motion to be an alternative option. Thus, given that we've already shown them our readiness to walk away if they try to abuse a license against 3rd party publishers and they seem to have believed us enough to nix their previous new license, put out a public if spun apology, and are trying to secure approval of the new license from the community, it seems like they are cognizant of the fact that they need our business more than we need their future goods or services. Thus any flagrant attempt at abuse of the license would probably just burn their own business to the ground as everyone jumps ship to an alternative.
At what point did 'hateful horrible products' ever appear? That sounds more like a strawman argument than anything, not to mention that OGL 1.2 just gives WotC a very big stick to hit 3rd party creators with for any reason whatsoever they please, considering the wording specifically states WotC's judgement is final, without any option for dissent or appeal. Even if you get 30 days to fix the issue, they can just say thati's not good enough and pull the license. That's a massive risk to sign in on as a 3rd party.
If they keep 1.0a, and open up 1.2 for anyone willing to sign in, it would take a lot of the heat out of the entire discussion.
Also, if anybody has a plan to to defraud thousands of people already, an OGL isn't going to stop them anyway.