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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
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.
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.
I'm thinking that by making 5.1 the only legitimate SRD, they will pull down the old ones and say that even if OGL1.0(a) is still valid, we still can't do anything with it because we're no longer allowed the old SRDs.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
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.
Here. Let me be the first to say it.
If 1.2 stays this way, with its warts repaired and otherwise sticking to the broad terms laid out in this draft? I want 1.0a de-authorized. I think this is a better deal, and I think people saying "we should reserve the right to be massively racist and discriminatory in our D&D books" don't deserve the time of day. I think there's real value to be had in telling bigots to get stuffed and telling NFT grifters to, also and concurrently, get stuffed. Those are things we don't get if 1.0a doesn't sunset and people can use it to make abusive and unscrupulous blockchain 'games' or print The Bigot's Guide to Genocide: an Ethnic Cleansing Supplement for the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game.
Is there room for improvement? Yes. But the entire exercise is pointless if we don't allow for the sunsetting of 1.0a as an option for new contracts. People will use the old version to get around all the necessary and reasonable restrictions in 1.2, and we'll be right back where we started - with bad actors making D&D a worse hobby to be in.
Nah. I'm good with an update. Just like with One D&D, sometimes a refresh of the rules can make a world of difference.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Have you seen this community? There's people in this very thread arguing that Wizards doesn't deserve the right to terminate contracts based on hateful content because hateful content is a fundamental and necessary part of D&D. No, I DON'T trust any of these people to "come down hard" on hateful content. And neither should you, or anyone else.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
No, it means it has no solid ground to land on. It's a poor 'what if' - argument, that I can see being used to provide WotC with more power to set boundaries on the creativity of others. Furthermore, what Krispy said
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.
Here. Let me be the first to say it.
If 1.2 stays this way, with its warts repaired and otherwise sticking to the broad terms laid out in this draft? I want 1.0a de-authorized. I think this is a better deal, and I think people saying "we should reserve the right to be massively racist and discriminatory in our D&D books" don't deserve the time of day. I think there's real value to be had in telling bigots to get stuffed and telling NFT grifters to, also and concurrently, get stuffed. Those are things we don't get if 1.0a doesn't sunset and people can use it to make abusive and unscrupulous blockchain 'games' or print The Bigot's Guide to Genocide: an Ethnic Cleansing Supplement for the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game.
Is there room for improvement? Yes. But the entire exercise is pointless if we don't allow for the sunsetting of 1.0a as an option for new contracts. People will use the old version to get around all the necessary and reasonable restrictions in 1.2, and we'll be right back where we started - with bad actors making D&D a worse hobby to be in.
Nah. I'm good with an update. Just like with One D&D, sometimes a refresh of the rules can make a world of difference.
Shockingly, I have zero issue at all with the new OGL including a clause to prevent bigotry and discrimination. Go get 'em.
The problem is the implementation - they've created a situation where they can wield this as a weapon against creators, with no assurance of reliability.
And again - 1.0a isn't some bastion of bigotry and filth. Things have been fine for 20+ years. If someone tries to abuse that now, there are other avenues of fighting 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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find 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.
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.
In a case of ambiguity yes, it matters. But I don't believe this is a case of ambiguity, and from your argument nor do you. Not all rights have to be reserved. From everything I've seen 1.0a is revocable in the ways they are seeking to revoke it. The things that can't be revoked are the rules systems themselves, because they aren't subject to copyright in the first place. Licenses to use IP typically come with revocation because the licensee may misuse the IP.
I'm not saying we shouldn't push back, I'm not happy with WotC for this debacle either. And yes pushing back got us this far, but there comes a point when the push back and "never give an inch" stance actually hurts you in negotiations. If you believe there is room to push for no de-authorization then by all means push for it, what I'm saying and Yurei is saying (though I don't agree with his approach or language) is we don't see that as a possibility. It has been the one thing they have refused to even consider and they have explained why. If it isn't revoked then 1.2 is worthless because anyone could just claim they created their stuff under 1.0a.
If you have actual arguments to these points I welcome them, but if all someone is going to say is "1.0a or bust" it's not helpful to this thread of communication. In fact, it makes it difficult for those trying to have actual discourse.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
No, it means it has no solid ground to land on. It's a poor 'what if' - argument, that I can see being used to provide WotC with more power to set boundaries on the creativity of others. Furthermore, what Krispy said
Except there is literally a case in court right now about someone attempting to publish racist content in a TTRPG homebrew and the publisher of the TTRPG slapping it down under their license terms. So it is demonstrably a thing that can happen.
At what point did 'hateful horrible products' ever appear?
I don't know if there are others but two spring to mind. The Book of (rhymes with necrotic) Fantasy and a nymph related book which name I forget caused a lot of stir. In fact, the BoEF was originally put out under the old D20 System Trademark License then ditched it when Wizards rushed to add a ban on 'adult content' to it to the OGL.
Whether you call it 'hateful' products I don't know but they were def ones a heartless megacorporation trying to keep a family friendly face would want to be associated with. I will say the BoEF was a horrible product and I heard nothing but savage reviews for the nymph book.
Needs work, reads more like an FAQ than a License. Still too much unneeded commentary, and lack of solid well defined terms and terminology. Section 2 License needs massive rewording closer to what 1.0a had for Section 4 Grant and Consideration with irrevocability and non-modification clause.
Notice of termination or change should be 60 days, rather than 30. A few things here and there, but it's somewhere a start could be had.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
You sure can. You think those folks care if their custom DnD content isn't published under the OGL? Or that their sites aren't hosted on the shadiest, least reputable, give-no-craps hosting services available?
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
You sure can. You think those folks care if their custom DnD content isn't published under the OGL? Or that their sites aren't hosted on the shadiest, least reputable, give-no-craps hosting services available?
They’ll certainly care when WotC/Hasbro sues them into bankruptcy.
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.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
You sure can. You think those folks care if their custom DnD content isn't published under the OGL? Or that their sites aren't hosted on the shadiest, least reputable, give-no-craps hosting services available?
They’ll certainly care when WotC/Hasbro sues them into bankruptcy.
That's a delightful thought, assuming they're not beyond WotC/Hasbro's reach.
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 will say there is a LOT of dispute over this amongst lawyers and you may not find it persuasive but a lot of people do.
As a lawyer I can tell you there is always dispute amongst lawyers, it's our job. I'm trying to approach my take on this from a pure reading of the law and the agreements, but I admit I'm not infallible and could be wrong. in every case at least one lawyer has to present a losing argument.
Reliance is a thing and would come up in terms of promissory estopple typically. The key element though is the aggrieved party must have reasonably relied on something to it's detriment. I don't think it would be reasonable to say anyone believed OGL 1.0a would continue in perpetuity, largely because it doesn't say that. Courts are typically hesitant to read something so substantial into a contract. And if WotC is leaving 1.0a in place for already existing content it would be difficult to argue any detriment occurred.
Like I said the law in general is hesitant with anything involving perpetuity. The rule against perpetuities, incredibly difficult to explain and not really relevant here because it deals with different areas of law, is an example of that. Contracts can be similar and as I said courts don't like reading adding such terms if they are not expressly stated.
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 will say there is a LOT of dispute over this amongst lawyers and you may not find it persuasive but a lot of people do.
As a lawyer I can tell you there is always dispute amongst lawyers, it's our job. I'm trying to approach my take on this from a pure reading of the law and the agreements, but I admit I'm not infallible and could be wrong. in every case at least one lawyer has to present a losing argument.
Reliance is a thing and would come up in terms of promissory estopple typically. The key element though is the aggrieved party must have reasonably relied on something to it's detriment. I don't think it would be reasonable to say anyone believed OGL 1.0a would continue in perpetuity, largely because it doesn't say that. Courts are typically hesitant to read something so substantial into a contract. And if WotC is leaving 1.0a in place for already existing content it would be difficult to argue any detriment occurred.
Like I said the law in general is hesitant with anything involving perpetuity. The rule against perpetuities, incredibly difficult to explain and not really relevant here because it deals with different areas of law, is an example of that. Contracts can be similar and as I said courts don't like reading adding such terms if they are not expressly stated.
Uh, not a lawyer, but...
Given that you can't really copyright game mechanics anyway, isn't it explicitly to a company's detriment to publish under a license that limits their use and rights related to the content they're creating?
The OGL was an agreement that no one was gonna get sued - not an actual requirement based on precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted (which I've seen repeated everywhere, including by actual lawyers).
So companies publishing under the OGL handicapped themselves, relying on an assurance they wouldn't be litigated against for doing so, even though they technically probably didn't need to do so...
Sounds like detriment to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The fact that hateful content hasn't appeared doesn't mean it won't. It just means they dodged a bullet.
Reliance.
I will say there is a LOT of dispute over this amongst lawyers and you may not find it persuasive but a lot of people do.
I'm thinking that by making 5.1 the only legitimate SRD, they will pull down the old ones and say that even if OGL1.0(a) is still valid, we still can't do anything with it because we're no longer allowed the old SRDs.
That's line in the sand unacceptable to me.
It actually DID appear. NuTSR tried making it.
Plus ye old Book of Erotic Fantasy from the D20 days.
The same guardrails that have always prevented it still exist.
It'd be near impossible to publish, near impossible to find anyone to sell or carry, and the community would come down on it hard.
Here. Let me be the first to say it.
If 1.2 stays this way, with its warts repaired and otherwise sticking to the broad terms laid out in this draft? I want 1.0a de-authorized. I think this is a better deal, and I think people saying "we should reserve the right to be massively racist and discriminatory in our D&D books" don't deserve the time of day. I think there's real value to be had in telling bigots to get stuffed and telling NFT grifters to, also and concurrently, get stuffed. Those are things we don't get if 1.0a doesn't sunset and people can use it to make abusive and unscrupulous blockchain 'games' or print The Bigot's Guide to Genocide: an Ethnic Cleansing Supplement for the World's Greatest Roleplaying Game.
Is there room for improvement? Yes. But the entire exercise is pointless if we don't allow for the sunsetting of 1.0a as an option for new contracts. People will use the old version to get around all the necessary and reasonable restrictions in 1.2, and we'll be right back where we started - with bad actors making D&D a worse hobby to be in.
Nah. I'm good with an update. Just like with One D&D, sometimes a refresh of the rules can make a world of difference.
EDIT:
Have you seen this community? There's people in this very thread arguing that Wizards doesn't deserve the right to terminate contracts based on hateful content because hateful content is a fundamental and necessary part of D&D. No, I DON'T trust any of these people to "come down hard" on hateful content. And neither should you, or anyone else.
Please do not contact or message me.
No, it means it has no solid ground to land on. It's a poor 'what if' - argument, that I can see being used to provide WotC with more power to set boundaries on the creativity of others.
Furthermore, what Krispy said
Shockingly, I have zero issue at all with the new OGL including a clause to prevent bigotry and discrimination. Go get 'em.
The problem is the implementation - they've created a situation where they can wield this as a weapon against creators, with no assurance of reliability.
And again - 1.0a isn't some bastion of bigotry and filth. Things have been fine for 20+ years. If someone tries to abuse that now, there are other avenues of fighting it.
Guardrails are nice, but not as nice as a legally binding agreement. As I said, they've been lucky, they don't want to rely on luck anymore.
And its child's play to put up a website and publish whatever you want. People will find it.
In a case of ambiguity yes, it matters. But I don't believe this is a case of ambiguity, and from your argument nor do you. Not all rights have to be reserved. From everything I've seen 1.0a is revocable in the ways they are seeking to revoke it. The things that can't be revoked are the rules systems themselves, because they aren't subject to copyright in the first place. Licenses to use IP typically come with revocation because the licensee may misuse the IP.
I'm not saying we shouldn't push back, I'm not happy with WotC for this debacle either. And yes pushing back got us this far, but there comes a point when the push back and "never give an inch" stance actually hurts you in negotiations. If you believe there is room to push for no de-authorization then by all means push for it, what I'm saying and Yurei is saying (though I don't agree with his approach or language) is we don't see that as a possibility. It has been the one thing they have refused to even consider and they have explained why. If it isn't revoked then 1.2 is worthless because anyone could just claim they created their stuff under 1.0a.
If you have actual arguments to these points I welcome them, but if all someone is going to say is "1.0a or bust" it's not helpful to this thread of communication. In fact, it makes it difficult for those trying to have actual discourse.
If you're hiding stuff on the Darkweb or a .ru website because it isn't acceptable anywhere else, you don't care whether you have a legitimate license for what you're distributing.
Except there is literally a case in court right now about someone attempting to publish racist content in a TTRPG homebrew and the publisher of the TTRPG slapping it down under their license terms. So it is demonstrably a thing that can happen.
I don't know if there are others but two spring to mind. The Book of (rhymes with necrotic) Fantasy and a nymph related book which name I forget caused a lot of stir. In fact, the BoEF was originally put out under the old D20 System Trademark License then ditched it when Wizards rushed to add a ban on 'adult content' to it to the OGL.
Whether you call it 'hateful' products I don't know but they were def ones a heartless megacorporation trying to keep a family friendly face would want to be associated with. I will say the BoEF was a horrible product and I heard nothing but savage reviews for the nymph book.
Needs work, reads more like an FAQ than a License. Still too much unneeded commentary, and lack of solid well defined terms and terminology. Section 2 License needs massive rewording closer to what 1.0a had for Section 4 Grant and Consideration with irrevocability and non-modification clause.
Notice of termination or change should be 60 days, rather than 30. A few things here and there, but it's somewhere a start could be had.
Right, because I certainly couldn't jump on Google and find a couple hundred webpages spouting about a 100 different flavors of hate in less than 1 second.
You sure can. You think those folks care if their custom DnD content isn't published under the OGL? Or that their sites aren't hosted on the shadiest, least reputable, give-no-craps hosting services available?
They’ll certainly care when WotC/Hasbro sues them into bankruptcy.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That's a delightful thought, assuming they're not beyond WotC/Hasbro's reach.
As a lawyer I can tell you there is always dispute amongst lawyers, it's our job. I'm trying to approach my take on this from a pure reading of the law and the agreements, but I admit I'm not infallible and could be wrong. in every case at least one lawyer has to present a losing argument.
Reliance is a thing and would come up in terms of promissory estopple typically. The key element though is the aggrieved party must have reasonably relied on something to it's detriment. I don't think it would be reasonable to say anyone believed OGL 1.0a would continue in perpetuity, largely because it doesn't say that. Courts are typically hesitant to read something so substantial into a contract. And if WotC is leaving 1.0a in place for already existing content it would be difficult to argue any detriment occurred.
Like I said the law in general is hesitant with anything involving perpetuity. The rule against perpetuities, incredibly difficult to explain and not really relevant here because it deals with different areas of law, is an example of that. Contracts can be similar and as I said courts don't like reading adding such terms if they are not expressly stated.
Uh, not a lawyer, but...
Given that you can't really copyright game mechanics anyway, isn't it explicitly to a company's detriment to publish under a license that limits their use and rights related to the content they're creating?
The OGL was an agreement that no one was gonna get sued - not an actual requirement based on precedent that game mechanics can't be copyrighted (which I've seen repeated everywhere, including by actual lawyers).
So companies publishing under the OGL handicapped themselves, relying on an assurance they wouldn't be litigated against for doing so, even though they technically probably didn't need to do so...
Sounds like detriment to me.