As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
Watch out for the Fan Content Policy. All this drama about OGL is ignoring the trap of the FCP.
Changes to the OGL mean nothing if Hasbro tries to sneak things into the FCP, which I am surprised nobody is paying attention to.
With regard to that, any assertion that Hasbro in any way has authority to forbid, allow or use fan generated media such as live play, reviews or commentary is FALSE. Similarly, game mechanics are not copyrightable, patentable or in any other way proprietary (only the specific expression thereof). Hasbro knows this, but is asserting otherwise.
If I want to write my own d20-like system that is mechanically compatible with 5e, without attribution to Hasbro in any form, and release or sell it under a license that in no way acknowledges Hasbro or any OGL, I get to do that. Hasbro can’t stop me. Anti-SLAPP laws and laws forbidding anticompetitive behavior are on my side.
Hasbro: long walk, short pier. You’ve lost trust now and forever. You’ve killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and it’s not coming back. The best you can do is prevent the wholesale abandonment of D&D by unconditional surrender. All other alternatives are worse for you and you cannot prevent them.
Watch out for the Fan Content Policy. All this drama about OGL is ignoring the trap of the FCP.
Changes to the OGL mean nothing if Hasbro tries to sneak things into the FCP, which I am surprised nobody is paying attention to.
With regard to that, any assertion that Hasbro in any way has authority to forbid, allow or use fan generated media such as live play, reviews or commentary is FALSE. Similarly, game mechanics are not copyrightable, patentable or in any other way proprietary (only the specific expression thereof). Hasbro knows this, but is asserting otherwise.
They have acknowledged that both are not addressed under the OGL in the new document. The first is not covered at all, and the second has now been released under creative commons...so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
If I want to write my own d20-like system, without attribution to Hasbro in any form, and release or sell it under a license that in no way acknowledges Hasbro or any OGL, I get to do that. Hasbro can’t stop me. Anti-SLAPP laws and laws forbidding anticompetitive behavior are on my side.
As previously stated, the mechanics are now in creative commons, so you can do exactly that, and Hasbro acknowledged it.
Hasbro: long walk, short pier. You’ve lost trust now and forever. You’ve killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and it’s not coming back. The best you can do is prevent the wholesale abandonment of D&D by unconditional surrender. All other alternatives are worse for you and you cannot prevent them.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
When a statement references a portion of a legal document, that portion becomes a part of the statement. So they did not make the assurance you claim. They made the assurance you will always be able to use any authorized version.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
When a statement references a portion of a legal document, that portion becomes a part of the statement. So they did not make the assurance you claim. They made the assurance you will always be able to use any authorized version.
If they can deauthorize any version of the OGL they want, the statement that the community can ignore the change is false.
And misleading.
If you relied on that statement and are now harmed by the change - such as losing the opportunity to publish something in the future- you may have a case for alleging fraud.
Honestly, my underlying issue with the way people go all “6f is an attempt to include unlimited shut down power” is that it’s a straw man argument. It presents the idea that WotC is ready to actively spend time parsing through all of the 3pp content to go all Big Brother on anything they don’t like. Do you really think that the company is doing so well that they can afford to pay people to do what is essentially a make-work job that will also burn their public image to the ground and drive off most of their players? Wouldn’t hurt to tweak the language so there’s a little room for discourse before the C&D’s fly, but the idea anyone cares enough to attempt to go all thought police either in truth or as some idiotic attempt at stifling 3pp content reads like a bad riff on Orwell.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
When a statement references a portion of a legal document, that portion becomes a part of the statement. So they did not make the assurance you claim. They made the assurance you will always be able to use any authorized version.
If they can deauthorize any version of the OGL they want, the statement that the community can ignore the change is false.
And misleading.
If you relied on that statement and are now harmed by the change - such as losing the opportunity to publish something in the future- you may have a case for alleging fraud.
It isn't false though. Whether old authorized versions exist isn't a promise.
Reliance isn't as simple as just saying you relied on it. The reliance has to be reasonable. Here I don't think it would be reasonable to rely on the statement as you do because of the language I described.
Honestly, my underlying issue with the way people go all “6f is an attempt to include unlimited shut down power” is that it’s a straw man argument. It presents the idea that WotC is ready to actively spend time parsing through all of the 3pp content to go all Big Brother on anything they don’t like. Do you really think that the company is doing so well that they can afford to pay people to do what is essentially a make-work job that will also burn their public image to the ground and drive off most of their players? Wouldn’t hurt to tweak the language so there’s a little room for discourse before the C&D’s fly, but the idea anyone cares enough to attempt to go all thought police either in truth or as some idiotic attempt at stifling 3pp content reads like a bad riff on Orwell.
I think a lot of people have significantly less trust in the company that made 5 billion dollars in revenue in 2021 and has (supposedly) commited into making the TTRPG space into like the micromanagement hell that is video games than you do.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
When a statement references a portion of a legal document, that portion becomes a part of the statement. So they did not make the assurance you claim. They made the assurance you will always be able to use any authorized version.
If they can deauthorize any version of the OGL they want, the statement that the community can ignore the change is false.
And misleading.
If you relied on that statement and are now harmed by the change - such as losing the opportunity to publish something in the future- you may have a case for alleging fraud.
It isn't false though. Whether old authorized versions exist isn't a promise.
Reliance isn't as simple as just saying you relied on it. The reliance has to be reasonable. Here I don't think it would be reasonable to rely on the statement as you do because of the language I described.
Considering it has been stated often that the OGL1.0a was permanent and irrevocable, the reliance is more than reasonable.
Maybe oyu have a different opinion there, but more than an opinion it is not.
Can someone point me to any of these statements for either side of the argument. I realize the claim is they've been removed, but given this is the internet I find it hard to believe there is no way to access them. I have found FAQs on OGLs, but I have no way of confirming what I found is what is being referenced by anyone here.
By "they said," I'm referring to the text of the 1.0a license itself - the text that ultimately matters most at the end of the day - saying "perpetual" but not "irrevocable."
Revenue is not profit, so that is a fairly limited metric. I’m well aware that they’ve said they want to further monetize the game, but there’s one very important thing you need to monetize any good or service. Consumers. As I’ve pointed out before, we have already shown that we’re ready to walk if they attempt to enact a restrictive or unfair license. There is no reason we couldn’t do the exact same thing again if they start using the morality clause as a bludgeon. But apparently we’re supposed to trust the doomsaying idea that WotC is pure unmitigated Stupid Evil over the fact that we have just overtly demonstrated the strength of our bargaining power and WotC had to respond to it. That said, we don’t have so much power to force them to completely abandon provisions to protect their image as associated with products they license it out to. Personally, I’m willing to trust in a lack of active malice and a desire to not drive away the consumers they want to continue to sell stuff to.
The only change WotC wants to implement with the deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a) is to take away the community's ability to continue to propagate versions of the game other than OneD&D. Any other changes they want can be implemented independently of that existing license and does not require its deauthorization.
The last time they tried to decouple themselves from the OGL was with the GSL and 4th edition. For a variety of reasons, this was not only unsuccessful, but led to the rise of Paizo and the creation of the Pathfinder game. There are two ways to prevent this from happening again: (1) create a new game and license that is so great that the public will want to play it to the exclusion of others, or (2) force the public to play their game by taking away peoples' ability to create alternatives. WotC has clearly made their choice.
The OGL is not an endorsement of the content it is used in. WotC aren't on the hook for other people's content any more than they are of my fanfiction. That people would blame WotC for what others would do with the OGL is reaching with no basis in reality.
In today's world, they absolutely are, especially if said content is published with their logon and IP, which is part of why folks product content with the OGL
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
I think it is telling that the defense for WotC's actions is that "someone" could do "something bad" that hasn't happened in 20 years and therefore anyone who opposes this massive overreach therefore must in some way be in support of the "something bad" or "they're immature babies wah wah".
How do you know something like this hasn't happened? I would guess probably not with the major 3PP producers (except to continue some of the ingrained stereotypes that WotC has previously included in their media and are now attempting to purge), but the smaller, fringe publishers? I'd be shocked if there wasn't racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory content out there under the 1.0a
It should be easy to prove. Go find one. It's very possible there's a black swan out there but I can't prove a negative.
Nobody has brought up anything yet anywhere I've looked that proves the existence of any such problematic publishers. If they're so unknown to the community at large that it's never been a problem before, then I dare say that it is at worst a neglible concern whereas the tactic of appealing to people's emotions by drumming up a scare about such things are well known and its use are widespread.
If someone in 2008 or whenever made a problematic adventure that until now nobody noticed was problematic, then I think that's pretty great all things considered and I don't think OGL 1.2 would help since it can only be enforced if we actually notice the problematic content in the first place.
Why don't we just call the new license the PATRIOT Gaming License 1.0? Then only terrorists wouldn't support the new gaming license!
Because they don't need people to like it. Corporations and Individuals that own IP have speech rights too (at least in the US), and part of that is what they allow to be done with the property they own in official capacities (remember, none of this stops your homebrew or table games...if you want orcs to be inherently brutish and evil, or the CoS Vistani to still exhibit the stereotypical view of the Romani peoples, you can do so at your table, but if you want to publish content officially, you have to comply with the intent of the properties owner).
Except they waived those rights under the OGL because they wanted to attract third party content. It's a give-and-take situation that generously benefited DnD for decades. It doesn't have to be. A license can be as one-sided as it wants to be, but usually there's something for either side.
What I do at my table has no bearing on this and is irrelevant for this discussion, though I agree that it is not directly threatened by the OGL.
Honestly, my underlying issue with the way people go all “6f is an attempt to include unlimited shut down power” is that it’s a straw man argument. It presents the idea that WotC is ready to actively spend time parsing through all of the 3pp content to go all Big Brother on anything they don’t like. Do you really think that the company is doing so well that they can afford to pay people to do what is essentially a make-work job that will also burn their public image to the ground and drive off most of their players? Wouldn’t hurt to tweak the language so there’s a little room for discourse before the C&D’s fly, but the idea anyone cares enough to attempt to go all thought police either in truth or as some idiotic attempt at stifling 3pp content reads like a bad riff on Orwell.
When a photo of James Raggi with Jordan Peterson went viral some in the hobby took up torches and pitchforks and many of them have sustained their attacks and obviously want to ruin him and his game.
Mobs of spiteful people and their campaigns of lies and misinformation can be very effective in this here age and culture of ours.
There is every possibility such people would lobby or even bully Wizards into pulling the license out from under those they consider "evil hateful bigots" when their arriving at such conclusions about them require leaps of logic and imagination.
Wouldn't the fact that WotC did not do anything about James Raggi, be evidence to suggest they won't in the future. I get your point that the scenario, but playing the hypothetical game (from either side) isn't productive. Someone could just as easily present a hypothetical in the opposite.
After some thought about clause 6F I feel like creating a committee of their cultural consultants, or maybe even a DEI Division with a C-level head, to oversee this clause could be the way to go. They could determine their non-exhaustive parameters for what they consider to be hateful or bigoted and make that publicly available. That way they have the flexibility to do what they need to do to protect players, but also transparency.
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
This is wrong under 1.2. One of the big boons creators receive under 1.2 is the ability to put the D&D ampersand logo on their products - something that is incredibly valuable as a marketing tool.
And your point about material being published under 1.0 is irrelevant. You don’t need to wait until there is a disaster to fix something - you shouldn’t. Wizards recently had a wake up call where someone tried to steal their IP and use Wizards’ IP to publish racism. They dodged a bullet there - like most racists, Ernest Gygax is a bit of a fool and tried to take something he clearly had no right to use.
But the situation could have been different - if he had any common sense, he would have gone for 1.0 content instead, and might have been able to publish something that both had D&D content in it and his “like in the real world, some races are better than others” nonsense.
When you dodge a bullet, you don’t just say “huh, that was odd”—you take steps to make sure you are not shot at again. After all, you don’t know if next time the bullet might hit.
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
This is wrong under 1.2. One of the big boons creators receive under 1.2 is the ability to put the D&D ampersand logo on their products - something that is incredibly valuable as a marketing tool.
And your point about material being published under 1.0 is irrelevant. You don’t need to wait until there is a disaster to fix something - you shouldn’t. Wizards recently had a wake up call where someone tried to steal their IP and use Wizards’ IP to publish racism. They dodged a bullet there - like most racists, Ernest Gygax is a bit of a fool and tried to take something he clearly had no right to use.
But the situation could have been different - if he had any common sense, he would have gone for 1.0 content instead, and might have been able to publish something that both had D&D content in it and his “like in the real world, some races are better than others” nonsense.
When you dodge a bullet, you don’t just say “huh, that was odd”—you take steps to make sure you are not shot at again. After all, you don’t know if next time the bullet might hit.
This 👆 I want to like it more than once. This is clearly such a concern that it is a basis for the whole thing. And rightly so. If someone publishes some bad stuff, it’s going to be WOTC that takes a hit and not the small fry. I don’t begrudge them their protection as the IP holder.
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
This is wrong under 1.2. One of the big boons creators receive under 1.2 is the ability to put the D&D ampersand logo on their products - something that is incredibly valuable as a marketing tool.
And your point about material being published under 1.0 is irrelevant. You don’t need to wait until there is a disaster to fix something - you shouldn’t. Wizards recently had a wake up call where someone tried to steal their IP and use Wizards’ IP to publish racism. They dodged a bullet there - like most racists, Ernest Gygax is a bit of a fool and tried to take something he clearly had no right to use.
But the situation could have been different - if he had any common sense, he would have gone for 1.0 content instead, and might have been able to publish something that both had D&D content in it and his “like in the real world, some races are better than others” nonsense.
When you dodge a bullet, you don’t just say “huh, that was odd”—you take steps to make sure you are not shot at again. After all, you don’t know if next time the bullet might hit.
To your point, you used to be able to use the D20 logo with the D20 System Trademark License in the early 2000s which was published (I think) alongside the OGL. That was until the Book of (starts with "E" and rhymes with necrotic) Fantasy was published under it and Wizards scrambled to alter the deal. The BOEF then switched to the OGL and removed the D20 trademark. The STL fell out of use after that though I don't know if this particular incident was related to that.
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
This is wrong under 1.2. One of the big boons creators receive under 1.2 is the ability to put the D&D ampersand logo on their products - something that is incredibly valuable as a marketing tool.
And your point about material being published under 1.0 is irrelevant. You don’t need to wait until there is a disaster to fix something - you shouldn’t. Wizards recently had a wake up call where someone tried to steal their IP and use Wizards’ IP to publish racism. They dodged a bullet there - like most racists, Ernest Gygax is a bit of a fool and tried to take something he clearly had no right to use.
But the situation could have been different - if he had any common sense, he would have gone for 1.0 content instead, and might have been able to publish something that both had D&D content in it and his “like in the real world, some races are better than others” nonsense.
When you dodge a bullet, you don’t just say “huh, that was odd”—you take steps to make sure you are not shot at again. After all, you don’t know if next time the bullet might hit.
This 👆 I want to like it more than once. This is clearly such a concern that it is a basis for the whole thing. And rightly so. If someone publishes some bad stuff, it’s going to be WOTC that takes a hit and not the small fry. I don’t begrudge them their protection as the IP holder.
Or, and bear with me here, people would actually look at We Make Horrid Stuff Press for making said horrid stuff, because their logo and name is all over the product. You know, instead of accusing WotC for something they did not do or make. And then We Make Horrid Stuff Press would get their behind kicked.
The words won't bite, and the prevarication around it is getting dumb.
That said, yes - the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Book of Blue Magic are things Wizards would prefer not to have their trademarks and trade dress on. Should those products be available to the general gaming public? Who knows - but as someone who's taken a quick look through an old PDF of the Book of Blue Magic when it was made available, I can say that book is kinda super rapey and not a good fit for most reasonable tables. There are spells to coerce sexual favors in said book, spells to permanently alter someone's orientation, and other things that would be Heap Big No Bueno in modern times.
It is an old example of content that Wizards would like the ability to distance themselves from, but it is still an example.
Or, and bear with me here, people would actually look at We Make Horrid Stuff Press for making said horrid stuff, because their logo and name is all over the product. You know, instead of accusing WotC for something they did not do or make. And then We Make Horrid Stuff Press would get their behind kicked.
Or am I being too logical here?
No, you're not being logical at all. The product is being made, marketed, and sold as A D&D Book. The averasge consumer is not going to buy it, realize it's horrible, and say "how dare this third-party person publish something horrible!" They're gonna say "How dare D&D publish something horrible!"
Anyone who publishes under the OGL is basically riding Wizards' rep. There's no reason to assume otherwise, because that's the entire point.
Right, but the whole point was that WotC/Hasbro made assurances that they couldn't do that exact thing.
Otherwise the assurance you can ignore any unwanted changes becomes meaningless and misleading, if not outright fraudulent as a false assurance.
Watch out for the Fan Content Policy. All this drama about OGL is ignoring the trap of the FCP.
Changes to the OGL mean nothing if Hasbro tries to sneak things into the FCP, which I am surprised nobody is paying attention to.
With regard to that, any assertion that Hasbro in any way has authority to forbid, allow or use fan generated media such as live play, reviews or commentary is FALSE. Similarly, game mechanics are not copyrightable, patentable or in any other way proprietary (only the specific expression thereof). Hasbro knows this, but is asserting otherwise.
If I want to write my own d20-like system that is mechanically compatible with 5e, without attribution to Hasbro in any form, and release or sell it under a license that in no way acknowledges Hasbro or any OGL, I get to do that. Hasbro can’t stop me. Anti-SLAPP laws and laws forbidding anticompetitive behavior are on my side.
Hasbro: long walk, short pier. You’ve lost trust now and forever. You’ve killed the goose that laid the golden eggs and it’s not coming back. The best you can do is prevent the wholesale abandonment of D&D by unconditional surrender. All other alternatives are worse for you and you cannot prevent them.
See you at five bucks a share.
They have acknowledged that both are not addressed under the OGL in the new document. The first is not covered at all, and the second has now been released under creative commons...so I'm not sure what you are talking about.
As previously stated, the mechanics are now in creative commons, so you can do exactly that, and Hasbro acknowledged it.
I doubt it, but you're free to think that.
When a statement references a portion of a legal document, that portion becomes a part of the statement. So they did not make the assurance you claim. They made the assurance you will always be able to use any authorized version.
If they can deauthorize any version of the OGL they want, the statement that the community can ignore the change is false.
And misleading.
If you relied on that statement and are now harmed by the change - such as losing the opportunity to publish something in the future- you may have a case for alleging fraud.
Honestly, my underlying issue with the way people go all “6f is an attempt to include unlimited shut down power” is that it’s a straw man argument. It presents the idea that WotC is ready to actively spend time parsing through all of the 3pp content to go all Big Brother on anything they don’t like. Do you really think that the company is doing so well that they can afford to pay people to do what is essentially a make-work job that will also burn their public image to the ground and drive off most of their players? Wouldn’t hurt to tweak the language so there’s a little room for discourse before the C&D’s fly, but the idea anyone cares enough to attempt to go all thought police either in truth or as some idiotic attempt at stifling 3pp content reads like a bad riff on Orwell.
It isn't false though. Whether old authorized versions exist isn't a promise.
Reliance isn't as simple as just saying you relied on it. The reliance has to be reasonable. Here I don't think it would be reasonable to rely on the statement as you do because of the language I described.
I think a lot of people have significantly less trust in the company that made 5 billion dollars in revenue in 2021 and has (supposedly) commited into making the TTRPG space into like the micromanagement hell that is video games than you do.
Considering it has been stated often that the OGL1.0a was permanent and irrevocable, the reliance is more than reasonable.
Maybe oyu have a different opinion there, but more than an opinion it is not.
By "they said," I'm referring to the text of the 1.0a license itself - the text that ultimately matters most at the end of the day - saying "perpetual" but not "irrevocable."
Revenue is not profit, so that is a fairly limited metric. I’m well aware that they’ve said they want to further monetize the game, but there’s one very important thing you need to monetize any good or service. Consumers. As I’ve pointed out before, we have already shown that we’re ready to walk if they attempt to enact a restrictive or unfair license. There is no reason we couldn’t do the exact same thing again if they start using the morality clause as a bludgeon. But apparently we’re supposed to trust the doomsaying idea that WotC is pure unmitigated Stupid Evil over the fact that we have just overtly demonstrated the strength of our bargaining power and WotC had to respond to it. That said, we don’t have so much power to force them to completely abandon provisions to protect their image as associated with products they license it out to. Personally, I’m willing to trust in a lack of active malice and a desire to not drive away the consumers they want to continue to sell stuff to.
The only change WotC wants to implement with the deauthorization of OGL 1.0(a) is to take away the community's ability to continue to propagate versions of the game other than OneD&D. Any other changes they want can be implemented independently of that existing license and does not require its deauthorization.
The last time they tried to decouple themselves from the OGL was with the GSL and 4th edition. For a variety of reasons, this was not only unsuccessful, but led to the rise of Paizo and the creation of the Pathfinder game. There are two ways to prevent this from happening again: (1) create a new game and license that is so great that the public will want to play it to the exclusion of others, or (2) force the public to play their game by taking away peoples' ability to create alternatives. WotC has clearly made their choice.
But they aren't. You can't use their logo or IP. You can only use the stuff from the SRD, which is already a legally gray area. Can you show me which 3rd party has been legally using the WotC's logo in their material via the OGL 1.0a?
It should be easy to prove. Go find one. It's very possible there's a black swan out there but I can't prove a negative.
Nobody has brought up anything yet anywhere I've looked that proves the existence of any such problematic publishers. If they're so unknown to the community at large that it's never been a problem before, then I dare say that it is at worst a neglible concern whereas the tactic of appealing to people's emotions by drumming up a scare about such things are well known and its use are widespread.
If someone in 2008 or whenever made a problematic adventure that until now nobody noticed was problematic, then I think that's pretty great all things considered and I don't think OGL 1.2 would help since it can only be enforced if we actually notice the problematic content in the first place.
Except they waived those rights under the OGL because they wanted to attract third party content. It's a give-and-take situation that generously benefited DnD for decades. It doesn't have to be. A license can be as one-sided as it wants to be, but usually there's something for either side.
What I do at my table has no bearing on this and is irrelevant for this discussion, though I agree that it is not directly threatened by the OGL.
Wouldn't the fact that WotC did not do anything about James Raggi, be evidence to suggest they won't in the future. I get your point that the scenario, but playing the hypothetical game (from either side) isn't productive. Someone could just as easily present a hypothetical in the opposite.
After some thought about clause 6F I feel like creating a committee of their cultural consultants, or maybe even a DEI Division with a C-level head, to oversee this clause could be the way to go. They could determine their non-exhaustive parameters for what they consider to be hateful or bigoted and make that publicly available. That way they have the flexibility to do what they need to do to protect players, but also transparency.
I think I may be suggesting this in my feedback.
Canto alla vita
alla sua bellezza
ad ogni sua ferita
ogni sua carezza!
I sing to life and to its tragic beauty
To pain and to strife, but all that dances through me
The rise and the fall, I've lived through it all!
This is wrong under 1.2. One of the big boons creators receive under 1.2 is the ability to put the D&D ampersand logo on their products - something that is incredibly valuable as a marketing tool.
And your point about material being published under 1.0 is irrelevant. You don’t need to wait until there is a disaster to fix something - you shouldn’t. Wizards recently had a wake up call where someone tried to steal their IP and use Wizards’ IP to publish racism. They dodged a bullet there - like most racists, Ernest Gygax is a bit of a fool and tried to take something he clearly had no right to use.
But the situation could have been different - if he had any common sense, he would have gone for 1.0 content instead, and might have been able to publish something that both had D&D content in it and his “like in the real world, some races are better than others” nonsense.
When you dodge a bullet, you don’t just say “huh, that was odd”—you take steps to make sure you are not shot at again. After all, you don’t know if next time the bullet might hit.
This 👆 I want to like it more than once. This is clearly such a concern that it is a basis for the whole thing. And rightly so. If someone publishes some bad stuff, it’s going to be WOTC that takes a hit and not the small fry. I don’t begrudge them their protection as the IP holder.
To your point, you used to be able to use the D20 logo with the D20 System Trademark License in the early 2000s which was published (I think) alongside the OGL. That was until the Book of (starts with "E" and rhymes with necrotic) Fantasy was published under it and Wizards scrambled to alter the deal. The BOEF then switched to the OGL and removed the D20 trademark. The STL fell out of use after that though I don't know if this particular incident was related to that.
Or, and bear with me here, people would actually look at We Make Horrid Stuff Press for making said horrid stuff, because their logo and name is all over the product.
You know, instead of accusing WotC for something they did not do or make. And then We Make Horrid Stuff Press would get their behind kicked.
Or am I being too logical here?
Y'all.
You can type "Book of Erotic Fantasy".
The words won't bite, and the prevarication around it is getting dumb.
That said, yes - the Book of Erotic Fantasy and the Book of Blue Magic are things Wizards would prefer not to have their trademarks and trade dress on. Should those products be available to the general gaming public? Who knows - but as someone who's taken a quick look through an old PDF of the Book of Blue Magic when it was made available, I can say that book is kinda super rapey and not a good fit for most reasonable tables. There are spells to coerce sexual favors in said book, spells to permanently alter someone's orientation, and other things that would be Heap Big No Bueno in modern times.
It is an old example of content that Wizards would like the ability to distance themselves from, but it is still an example.
EDIT:
No, you're not being logical at all. The product is being made, marketed, and sold as A D&D Book. The averasge consumer is not going to buy it, realize it's horrible, and say "how dare this third-party person publish something horrible!" They're gonna say "How dare D&D publish something horrible!"
Anyone who publishes under the OGL is basically riding Wizards' rep. There's no reason to assume otherwise, because that's the entire point.
Please do not contact or message me.