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.
Which creators? The ones who have just left the building? 1500 publishers are gathering behind ORC. There’s practically no one left who is interested in using OGL 1.2. The whole discussion is moot. There is no one left who will use the license.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
You seriously think WOTC is insulated from that? By publishing stuff under the OGL the ampersand goes on it. Their IP. And yes, their trademark also. That in itself gives the imprimatur of approval. And in the end, liability. And don’t think for a second that the Horrid Press company wouldn’t say “hey it’s not our fault. They let us publish it under their mark. They should be responsible too.” It’s not realistic.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
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?
All of this is a question of control you (or anyone) feels that is reasonable (in a non legal term) for Wizards to have. Some here have stated they feel this is a reasonable amount of control Wizards should have with their IP. Others have stated that because so many people relied on the 'open' level of control Wizards had in the past that this should continue (or at least not be disrupted for those who have relied on it). You're right, the defense for Wizards is that under an 'open' system you're letting people take their own responsibility for their use of your IP. On the other hand, if you want to exert further control for whatever business reasons you might have as part of brand management, this is just not going to work. Guilt by association, misunderstanding, and click bait articles ("Racist D&D game published") are all realities that they can't ignore. I have my opinion on which I prefer but I also know I don't run a multi billion dollar publically traded company that has shareholders wanting to produce maximum quarterly gains. I also know what other multi billion dollar publically traded companies handle IP and it's about as far away from 'open' as you can get.
From what I can tell, this is a step in the right direction. Keyword, a step. I know for my own projects this clears things up for me, but I am by no means everyone here. There are still some things in this OGL that are concerning. (What exactly is obscene content to WotC? Right now it could be one thing, but tomorrow it could be a different thing. That really REALLY needs to be better defined)
For me, they really need to not revoke OGL 1.0(a). It's good the new one doesn't apply to the old stuff retroactively, but unless the old OGL sticks around for those who want to use it, then there is still going to be a lot of backlash.
No doubt some of that backlash is just people hating WotC because they want to hate it, but some people are absolutely genuine with their concern for this.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
It is hard to be logical when you are so clearly missing the point. Wizards doesn’t want their name or their logo on hate. They have good reason for not wanting their name and logo on hate, and those reason go beyond just not wanting their content used for hate.
And it goes beyond just protecting Wizards - every third party publisher (other than the bigots) benefits from Wizards having a way to police hate. They want to have the badge on their products - and they want the badge to stand for something. With these terms, they can proudly wear the badge on their covers and proclaim “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and you can be assured this product doesn’t stand for bigotry.” That’s far more valuable to legitimate third party publishers than “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and I know you have heard that lots of bigotry gets published with this mark on it, so why don’t you open me up and see if I am offensive or not!”
A mark that says usage and a guarantee of certain quantities is far more valuable to non-bigoted third party producers than one that only says usage.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
Yes, thanks for proving my exact point.
Kind of like it will be under the new OGL, which allows you to use their logo in your marketing?
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
Yes, thanks for proving my exact point.
Kind of like it will be under the new OGL, which allows you to use their logo in your marketing?
Which is not the case right now, so you are making this point to say the new OGL is bad on this point and should not allow it. Or you are making the point that the new OGL should have a fair abritration system in place to avoid 3rd Prty of having to worry about being accused of Horrible Stuff without being able to fight 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.
Or am I being too logical here?
It is hard to be logical when you are so clearly missing the point. Wizards doesn’t want their name or their logo on hate. They have good reason for not wanting their name and logo on hate, and those reason go beyond just not wanting their content used for hate.
And it goes beyond just protecting Wizards - every third party publisher (other than the bigots) benefits from Wizards having a way to police hate. They want to have the badge on their products - and they want the badge to stand for something. With these terms, they can proudly wear the badge on their covers and proclaim “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and you can be assured this product doesn’t stand for bigotry.” That’s far more valuable to legitimate third party publishers than “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and I know you have heard that lots of bigotry gets published with this mark on it, so why don’t you open me up and see if I am offensive or not!”
A mark that says usage and a guarantee of certain quantities is far more valuable to non-bigoted third party producers than one that only says usage.
Oh no, I got the point, but thanks for trying to think for me and talking down to people all the time. Maybe you should try to avoid that, much like WotC should try to avoid trying to screw their content creators over.
You know what is also very valuable to content creators and actually keeping them onboard with your brand? A fair way to appeal to the multi-billion dollar company instad of seeing your license revoked for any reason the multi-billion dolalr company feels like pulling out of their hat at any given time.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
Yes, thanks for proving my exact point.
Kind of like it will be under the new OGL, which allows you to use their logo in your marketing?
Which is not the case right now, so you are making this point to say the new OGL is bad on this point and should not allow it. Or you are making the point that the new OGL should have a fair abritration system in place to avoid 3rd Prty of having to worry about being accused of Horrible Stuff without being able to fight that.
Glad we got that worked out.
At the end of the day, it’s no different from the terms you’ve agreed to as a part of posting in this or any other moderated forum, except that people have decided for their narrative that WotC must be cast as mustache twirling Stupid Evil villains who are actively looking to ruin 3pp content at every opportunity. This is not some unheard of and unreasonable demand, it’s a fairly boilerplate provision to large scale independent speech that has a company’s name attached to it.
This topic is not moot. There are 20 years of products -- and their creators -- who are still trapped in limbo.
No, much like Wizards doesn't care about OGC created using the SRD 3.5, the community doesn't particularly care about creating new OGC under the SRD 5.1 or 6.
But they sure as hell do care about continuing to maintain and iterate off of the 20 years of content that was promised to be open perpetually. Some of their livelihoods depend on it.
And the new so-called "irrevocability" clause gives Wizards the right to cause this same scenario at will at any time in the future.
No OGL without TRUE irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDnD
**
The thing I understand the least about moral crusaders is how blind they seem to be to the fact that the moral compass of society is constantly in motion.
The tools you put in place today to protect your sensibilities can be used by your opponents tomorrow to protect theirs.
Not to mention the fact that what matters to a publicly-traded corporation is not morality, but the absence of controversy. The absence of controversy is not in support of anything -- it seeks to do the minimum necessary to keep everyone from complaining, you and your opponents.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
J Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist
To me, this reads that WotC can void the entire document for any reason. That's not ok in my eyes. Acting like an unenforceable section doesn't exist I think is normal, but nullifying the entire document? I'm not a lawyer, so if this is standard practice, please let us know, otherwise not enough people are talking about this part.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
Yes, thanks for proving my exact point.
Kind of like it will be under the new OGL, which allows you to use their logo in your marketing?
Which is not the case right now, so you are making this point to say the new OGL is bad on this point and should not allow it. Or you are making the point that the new OGL should have a fair abritration system in place to avoid 3rd Prty of having to worry about being accused of Horrible Stuff without being able to fight that.
Glad we got that worked out.
At the end of the day, it’s no different from the terms you’ve agreed to as a part of posting in this or any other moderated forum, except that people have decided for their narrative that WotC must be cast as mustache twirling Stupid Evil villains who are actively looking to ruin 3pp content at every opportunity. This is not some unheard of and unreasonable demand, it’s a fairly boilerplate provision to large scale independent speech that has a company’s name attached to it.
Hmm.. no. That's just the image you (and several others) would like you cast on people who are bringing justified and well argumented criticism on the plans of WotC's suit division.
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.
Or even "Why isn't D&D doing something about this??"
Hell, all the inevitable headline has to say is "D&D-compatible" - technically true - and WotC is now in damage control mode.
(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist
To me, this reads that WotC can void the entire document for any reason. That's not ok in my eyes. Acting like an unenforceable section doesn't exist I think is normal, but nullifying the entire document? I'm not a lawyer, so if this is standard practice, please let us know, otherwise not enough people are talking about this part.
No, not "for any reason." The contract has to first be found, in whole or in part, "unenforceable or invalid" - and that can't be by WotC themselves.
(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist
To me, this reads that WotC can void the entire document for any reason. That's not ok in my eyes. Acting like an unenforceable section doesn't exist I think is normal, but nullifying the entire document? I'm not a lawyer, so if this is standard practice, please let us know, otherwise not enough people are talking about this part.
That's one reading, or as it is a legal document, it is covering their ass if some government changes a law that makes it impossible for them to continue the licensing agreement. I really don't get where people think Hasbro wants to destroy D&D entirely, that is certainly how you all are acting. Are they good guys, no, they are just a corp, like any corp. They over reached, had their hands burnt, and they likely wouldn't risk that again.
I'm going to point out, one more time, that saying "Wizards of the Coast will unilaterally pull people's licenses for no reason whatsoever to their and everybody else's detriment because wOkE sHiT" means you are not allowed to say "nobody has ever published anything hateful under the OGL and nobody ever will so it's a moot point."
You can't accuse one side of a dispute of self-destructive levels of irrational anarchy and then assume the other side of the dispute will always be perfectly reasonable forever. Evil hateful bigots exist, and they've spent a lot of time and energy in recent years using ever more esoteric and unexpected ways to get their evil hateful bigoted message in front of as many people as they can. Saying "this hasn't been an issue therefore it will never be an issue" is disingenuous. Again: people are championing the cause of evil hateful bigots in this very thread, saying Wizards should have no right to strike down evil hateful bigotry and must always allow anything anyone wants to publish under their name and umbrella to happen no matter what it is. And no - the blame will not fall on 'Horrible Stuff Press', it will fall squarely on Wizards, because it's Wizards' game and Wizards' logo.
Stop it. Some version of 6f is reasonable to include. This version, probably not, but ripping it out altogether is not gonna fly.
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.
Or am I being too logical here?
You seriously think WOTC is insulated from that? By publishing stuff under the OGL the ampersand goes on it. Their IP. And yes, their trademark also. That in itself gives the imprimatur of approval. And in the end, liability. And don’t think for a second that the Horrid Press company wouldn’t say “hey it’s not our fault. They let us publish it under their mark. They should be responsible too.” It’s not realistic.
Under the OGL1.a their ampersand does not go on it. Under OGL1.2 it does, but then no company has a means to appeal any decision made by WotC. The first is no big issue, the second is, and it has remained so through several iterations of WotC comments, so do forgive me for lacking a bit of faith in the intentions of WotC's legal division here.
Also, what Horrid Press company says is hardly releveant to public opinion. Surprisingly, people can actually read, which is why there is such an issue with the OGL 1.2 right now.
Honestly, the people complaining about the Hateful Conduct clause and the people defending the Hateful Conduct clause are both playing into Wizards hands here. It's a scapegoat, it makes the detractors of the OGL sound like they just want to defend bigotry and Wizards themselves can act like they're some benevolent force making changes to protect their customers.
It's designed to shift the conversation away from the actual legal issues for TPP's and VTT's, which is where the real financial interest is for Wizards, and the legitimate concerns lay.
I know it's not as "sexy" a conversation, cos god knows everyone has aligned political opinions one way or the other, but it's disappointing seeing this thread constantly devolve into "You just want to run a sexual assault simulator!" vs "You just hate free speech!"
Stop having the argument they want you to have and start asking questions about why the original OGL can't simply have a Hateful Conduct clause included, but remain otherwise unaltered.
(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist
To me, this reads that WotC can void the entire document for any reason. That's not ok in my eyes. Acting like an unenforceable section doesn't exist I think is normal, but nullifying the entire document? I'm not a lawyer, so if this is standard practice, please let us know, otherwise not enough people are talking about this part.
it's not for any reason. It's is an option if a court determines one or more provisions unenforceable or invalid. The any reason part of the statement is referencing the reason it would be determined unenforceable or invalid. Contracts are enforce through the courts and courts determine as a matter of law whether a contract is enforceable in that event. The language isn't a clear as it could be on that so I understand the confusion.
You are correct that severability clauses typically are focused on keeping the remainder of the document valid. Without them if one provision is invalid they all are because a contract must be read in its entirety. WotC is seeking the option to leave it in place or void the whole thing. My guess would be they are concerned key provisions may be deemed unenforceable and in that event they wouldn't want it to remain at all so they could try anew. But if the provision deemed unenforceable wasn't important to them at the time they'd leave the rest be.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Which creators? The ones who have just left the building? 1500 publishers are gathering behind ORC. There’s practically no one left who is interested in using OGL 1.2. The whole discussion is moot. There is no one left who will use the license.
You seriously think WOTC is insulated from that? By publishing stuff under the OGL the ampersand goes on it. Their IP. And yes, their trademark also. That in itself gives the imprimatur of approval. And in the end, liability. And don’t think for a second that the Horrid Press company wouldn’t say “hey it’s not our fault. They let us publish it under their mark. They should be responsible too.” It’s not realistic.
Has anything you’ve seen here suggested there wouldn’t be a loud segment ready to seize any opportunity to jump all over WotC at the slightest excuse?
All of this is a question of control you (or anyone) feels that is reasonable (in a non legal term) for Wizards to have. Some here have stated they feel this is a reasonable amount of control Wizards should have with their IP. Others have stated that because so many people relied on the 'open' level of control Wizards had in the past that this should continue (or at least not be disrupted for those who have relied on it).
You're right, the defense for Wizards is that under an 'open' system you're letting people take their own responsibility for their use of your IP. On the other hand, if you want to exert further control for whatever business reasons you might have as part of brand management, this is just not going to work. Guilt by association, misunderstanding, and click bait articles ("Racist D&D game published") are all realities that they can't ignore.
I have my opinion on which I prefer but I also know I don't run a multi billion dollar publically traded company that has shareholders wanting to produce maximum quarterly gains. I also know what other multi billion dollar publically traded companies handle IP and it's about as far away from 'open' as you can get.
From what I can tell, this is a step in the right direction. Keyword, a step. I know for my own projects this clears things up for me, but I am by no means everyone here. There are still some things in this OGL that are concerning. (What exactly is obscene content to WotC? Right now it could be one thing, but tomorrow it could be a different thing. That really REALLY needs to be better defined)
For me, they really need to not revoke OGL 1.0(a). It's good the new one doesn't apply to the old stuff retroactively, but unless the old OGL sticks around for those who want to use it, then there is still going to be a lot of backlash.
No doubt some of that backlash is just people hating WotC because they want to hate it, but some people are absolutely genuine with their concern for this.
For a document WotC actually created, you mean? Because their logo and name was on it, you mean?
Yes, thanks for proving my exact point.
It is hard to be logical when you are so clearly missing the point. Wizards doesn’t want their name or their logo on hate. They have good reason for not wanting their name and logo on hate, and those reason go beyond just not wanting their content used for hate.
And it goes beyond just protecting Wizards - every third party publisher (other than the bigots) benefits from Wizards having a way to police hate. They want to have the badge on their products - and they want the badge to stand for something. With these terms, they can proudly wear the badge on their covers and proclaim “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and you can be assured this product doesn’t stand for bigotry.” That’s far more valuable to legitimate third party publishers than “you can use this product with the largest game out there, and I know you have heard that lots of bigotry gets published with this mark on it, so why don’t you open me up and see if I am offensive or not!”
A mark that says usage and a guarantee of certain quantities is far more valuable to non-bigoted third party producers than one that only says usage.
Kind of like it will be under the new OGL, which allows you to use their logo in your marketing?
Which is not the case right now, so you are making this point to say the new OGL is bad on this point and should not allow it.
Or you are making the point that the new OGL should have a fair abritration system in place to avoid 3rd Prty of having to worry about being accused of Horrible Stuff without being able to fight that.
Glad we got that worked out.
Oh no, I got the point, but thanks for trying to think for me and talking down to people all the time. Maybe you should try to avoid that, much like WotC should try to avoid trying to screw their content creators over.
You know what is also very valuable to content creators and actually keeping them onboard with your brand? A fair way to appeal to the multi-billion dollar company instad of seeing your license revoked for any reason the multi-billion dolalr company feels like pulling out of their hat at any given time.
At the end of the day, it’s no different from the terms you’ve agreed to as a part of posting in this or any other moderated forum, except that people have decided for their narrative that WotC must be cast as mustache twirling Stupid Evil villains who are actively looking to ruin 3pp content at every opportunity. This is not some unheard of and unreasonable demand, it’s a fairly boilerplate provision to large scale independent speech that has a company’s name attached to it.
This topic is not moot. There are 20 years of products -- and their creators -- who are still trapped in limbo.
No, much like Wizards doesn't care about OGC created using the SRD 3.5, the community doesn't particularly care about creating new OGC under the SRD 5.1 or 6.
But they sure as hell do care about continuing to maintain and iterate off of the 20 years of content that was promised to be open perpetually. Some of their livelihoods depend on it.
And the new so-called "irrevocability" clause gives Wizards the right to cause this same scenario at will at any time in the future.
No OGL without TRUE irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDnD
**
The thing I understand the least about moral crusaders is how blind they seem to be to the fact that the moral compass of society is constantly in motion.
The tools you put in place today to protect your sensibilities can be used by your opponents tomorrow to protect theirs.
Not to mention the fact that what matters to a publicly-traded corporation is not morality, but the absence of controversy. The absence of controversy is not in support of anything -- it seeks to do the minimum necessary to keep everyone from complaining, you and your opponents.
J
Great Wyrm Moonstone Dungeon Master
The time of the ORC has come. No OGL without irrevocability; no OGL with 'authorized version' language. #openDND
Practice, practice, practice • Respect the rules; don't memorize them • Be merciless, not cruel • Don't let the dice run the game for you
Section 9 sub section D is concerning to me.
To me, this reads that WotC can void the entire document for any reason. That's not ok in my eyes. Acting like an unenforceable section doesn't exist I think is normal, but nullifying the entire document? I'm not a lawyer, so if this is standard practice, please let us know, otherwise not enough people are talking about this part.
Hmm.. no. That's just the image you (and several others) would like you cast on people who are bringing justified and well argumented criticism on the plans of WotC's suit division.
But hey, you do you. Have fun with that.
Or even "Why isn't D&D doing something about this??"
Hell, all the inevitable headline has to say is "D&D-compatible" - technically true - and WotC is now in damage control mode.
No, not "for any reason." The contract has to first be found, in whole or in part, "unenforceable or invalid" - and that can't be by WotC themselves.
That's one reading, or as it is a legal document, it is covering their ass if some government changes a law that makes it impossible for them to continue the licensing agreement. I really don't get where people think Hasbro wants to destroy D&D entirely, that is certainly how you all are acting. Are they good guys, no, they are just a corp, like any corp. They over reached, had their hands burnt, and they likely wouldn't risk that again.
I'm going to point out, one more time, that saying "Wizards of the Coast will unilaterally pull people's licenses for no reason whatsoever to their and everybody else's detriment because wOkE sHiT" means you are not allowed to say "nobody has ever published anything hateful under the OGL and nobody ever will so it's a moot point."
You can't accuse one side of a dispute of self-destructive levels of irrational anarchy and then assume the other side of the dispute will always be perfectly reasonable forever. Evil hateful bigots exist, and they've spent a lot of time and energy in recent years using ever more esoteric and unexpected ways to get their evil hateful bigoted message in front of as many people as they can. Saying "this hasn't been an issue therefore it will never be an issue" is disingenuous. Again: people are championing the cause of evil hateful bigots in this very thread, saying Wizards should have no right to strike down evil hateful bigotry and must always allow anything anyone wants to publish under their name and umbrella to happen no matter what it is. And no - the blame will not fall on 'Horrible Stuff Press', it will fall squarely on Wizards, because it's Wizards' game and Wizards' logo.
Stop it. Some version of 6f is reasonable to include. This version, probably not, but ripping it out altogether is not gonna fly.
Please do not contact or message me.
Under the OGL1.a their ampersand does not go on it. Under OGL1.2 it does, but then no company has a means to appeal any decision made by WotC. The first is no big issue, the second is, and it has remained so through several iterations of WotC comments, so do forgive me for lacking a bit of faith in the intentions of WotC's legal division here.
Also, what Horrid Press company says is hardly releveant to public opinion. Surprisingly, people can actually read, which is why there is such an issue with the OGL 1.2 right now.
Honestly, the people complaining about the Hateful Conduct clause and the people defending the Hateful Conduct clause are both playing into Wizards hands here. It's a scapegoat, it makes the detractors of the OGL sound like they just want to defend bigotry and Wizards themselves can act like they're some benevolent force making changes to protect their customers.
It's designed to shift the conversation away from the actual legal issues for TPP's and VTT's, which is where the real financial interest is for Wizards, and the legitimate concerns lay.
I know it's not as "sexy" a conversation, cos god knows everyone has aligned political opinions one way or the other, but it's disappointing seeing this thread constantly devolve into "You just want to run a sexual assault simulator!" vs "You just hate free speech!"
Stop having the argument they want you to have and start asking questions about why the original OGL can't simply have a Hateful Conduct clause included, but remain otherwise unaltered.
it's not for any reason. It's is an option if a court determines one or more provisions unenforceable or invalid. The any reason part of the statement is referencing the reason it would be determined unenforceable or invalid. Contracts are enforce through the courts and courts determine as a matter of law whether a contract is enforceable in that event. The language isn't a clear as it could be on that so I understand the confusion.
You are correct that severability clauses typically are focused on keeping the remainder of the document valid. Without them if one provision is invalid they all are because a contract must be read in its entirety. WotC is seeking the option to leave it in place or void the whole thing. My guess would be they are concerned key provisions may be deemed unenforceable and in that event they wouldn't want it to remain at all so they could try anew. But if the provision deemed unenforceable wasn't important to them at the time they'd leave the rest be.