My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
EDIT: I think they should clearly state that if it is found in court to be unenforceable. Otherwise it still reads like someone at WotC can go "nah, we can't enforce the section about the creator badge (or whatever section really) so throw away the whole document." I don't want that, you don't want that (and I'm pretty sure WotC realistically doesn't want that). So yeah, they need to clear that up in my opinion.
Problems with OGL 1.2a from the perspective of a 3rd party publisher. (Very small, my first book is on kickstarter, now)
1) De-authorization of OGL 1.0a.
I write for Level Up! and the Gate Pass Gazette through EN Publishing using a sublicense of 1.0a. Once 1.0a is deauthorized, I cannot create more Level Up! or Gate Pass Gazette content. In fact no one can until either the OGL from Level Up! is removed through a Revised Edition (expensive) or EN Publishing re-publishes Level Up! with the new 1.2a license (less expensive, but locks them into 1.2a). But even the idea that WotC can unilaterally declare a version of the OGL to be "Deauthorized" results in a situation where every year, or few years, we wind up back at this point. With WotC creating their next OGL and all previous works by a company being locked down until either the OGL is removed (expensive) or they sign the new OGL (less expensive, but locks them into the new license)
It means I have no real legal protection, here, on my publishing, since the terms and conditions can change moment to moment. The OGL was implemented as a powerful foundation meant to give 3pp a sense of structure and stability around the use of the SRD to create more content for the game we all love and not fear going bankrupt to WotC's legal fees. The idea that the foundation of all of our work, and businesses, could be ripped up at a moment's notice so WotC can dictate terms on a -new- foundation is untenable.
The OGL 1.0a cannot be de-authorized if we're to move forward. It needs to be enshrined, permanently, as the 5e/3e legal document it was created to be.
If they want their new clauses, it needs to be an OGL/GSL situation. And we all saw how many people were willing to publish under the GSL.
2. The Morality Clause
Very nifty in theory. Very dangerous in practice. Particularly in their "Revoke the License at our discretion" with no legal recourse. I'm a bisexual transgender white woman, so the basic idea of WotC protecting my work and their own work from hateful and awful new works (like NuTSR's Star Frontiers boondoggle) is actually really joyous! But. It still gives them unilateral ability to decide what is and isn't hateful with no legal recourse or third party arbitration. Which could result in a tolerance of intolerance situation in which presenting bigots as bad guys is "Hateful Content" and my license gets pulled. I don't know if anyone is willing to risk that kind of nonsense.
3. The Illegality Clause
Again, seems like a great idea! You can't publish illegal content. What a no-brainer! But... LGBTQIA+ characters or existence being shown in a positive light is illegal in Russia. Paranormal Power includes a brief passage about a nonbinary child using Psionic Abilities. If I sell a copy of Paranormal Power to a Russian Citizen, I've broken Russian Law, and WotC would have legal authority to revoke my license. Even if WotC itself opposes that law, all it takes is one person at WotC with a modicum of power to say "I don't like this Steampunkette person and her work." and blammo. License revoked, no further content from me, and I have no legal recourse to oppose the decision.
Heck, Florida and other states are looking to pass laws where "Exposing Children" to LGBTQIA+ content or existence will be illegal. Which means I'd need to slap an 18+ warning on Paranormal Power to sell it in the US under OGL 1.2a to avoid getting my license revoked. How messed up is that?
4. Methods into Creative Commons
It's a nice gesture. But as every copyright and trademark lawyer has said over the past several weeks (and some have been screaming for years) you cannot copyright 1d20+Modifiers. It's a method or game rule rather than any form of specific protected intellectual property. By announcing they're putting the base rules of the game (but not anything they can apply IP law toward) into Creative Commons they've reached out with an olive branch made of balsa wood.
They're saying "We won't sue you into oblivion over these rules" which is great and all, but it also acknowledges that the only reason those rules were in the OGL before was an attempt to bully people into using it with legalese and the implication they'd sue us into oblivion. Even knowing they could never "Win" such a case they could drag it out over however long it took to bankrupt a 3rd party publisher.
So it's -kind- of a nothingburger and kind of a "This is already the status quo, we're just gonna make it official and unload one of the guns we've been pointing at your head in a show of good faith."
5. Summation
The OGL was meant to last forever. It was meant to be irrevocable and permanent. It was never meant to be "De-Authorized" at any point. The terms WotC is trying to use to get rid of it -now- did not exist as specific legal concepts when it was written, and the architects of the OGL have explained that, repeatedly. There is no situation where getting rid of the OGL 1.0a is a good thing or a positive step. Particularly since it shows WotC is entirely willing to blow up any deal it has previously made to increase the control and power they now possess for their shareholders.
WotC can no longer be trusted by third party publishers. There is no real "Path Forward" after this. The best they can do is enshrine 1.0a and pretend this fiasco never happened, but the ORC is still going to be written. And most publishers aware of this event will be signing on to it, or Creative Commons, or some other license that offers real stability long-term.
Even if they took out all the poison pills, it still can't be trusted. Wizards have shown they'll change terms whenever the like. No contract will ever be held in good faith.
My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
If some idiot down the line tries to clamp down again, we just remind them that we’re willing to walk away. And unless something causes ORC to crash and burn, the very existence of an alternative license will be a pressure against such actions. I’m not saying we can blithely trust everything they do, but ultimately they can’t afford to put the squeeze on too hard.
The job of the legal division is to protect the company from liability. And stuff going out under their license with their IP on it puts them in the spotlight. I’m a lawyer, and if my client has a beef with a 3PP for stuff published under 1.2 I’m naming WOTC also. Their marks are there, they’re getting sued. It’s the way it goes. Public opinion or fairness is not the biggest issue for the legal department. Liability is. And in this day and age where people and companies get sued all the time? It’s irresponsible to not cover themselves. You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it. And the company is in the business of making money. If an agreement with 3PP is the way to do it, fine. If not, nope. It IS their IP after all. No arrangement is perfect but there might be enough here for them to go with it instead of the alternative of a different unknown system and likely lesser reach for their product. It’s a business and a legal decision for both sides. It has to be. I’m not saying WOTC is being smart about the whole thing. The history of this game is riddled with terrible decisions. But I understand their position and why they are doing what they’re doing. And that’s the light in which I myself will do what I think best in response. Others need to do the same for themselves.
You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
edit: fixing grammar
You are absolutely correct. I don’t like the no appeal thing either and I want the 3PP content also. But with everything else, it’s a question as to what people can live with. I’m betting some 3PP will go along with it. And WOTC is clearly betting on that also.
My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
If some idiot down the line tries to clamp down again, we just remind them that we’re willing to walk away. And unless something causes ORC to crash and burn, the very existence of an alternative license will be a pressure against such actions. I’m not saying we can blithely trust everything they do, but ultimately they can’t afford to put the squeeze on too hard.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
edit: fixing grammar
One thing that might help ease some people's worries I'd like to touch on. It has been pointed out before, but it's clear from the comments it's being ignored by many or at least undervalued. Any 3PP can produce content using the D20 system and rules regardless of the OGL. Where they run into an issue is the specific copyrighted materials WotC/Hasbro owns.
For example, I could publish an adventure using the rules with my own classes, monsters, npcs, storylines, etc. The OLG has nothing to do with that. Even if the content would be in violation of the OGL (any version). This is even true for hateful/harmful content.
What I can't do (focusing specifically on 1.2 now) is publish that adventure using the classes, monsters, npcs, storylines, etc. owned by WotC/hasbro through copyright. Then WatC/Hasbro can say, "Hey, you can't use our copyrighted material like that." There are questions as to what of those items are actually copyrightable on a case by case basis, but that discussion goes into the weeds a bit too far for our purposes. WotC can also say, "Hey, you can't use our logos" which is a similar but separate issue.
This is important to remember because there is substantial conflation in these arguments about how that could work. Is it ideal for 3PP to not use those copyrighted things? No, of course they would like to as it makes developing their product easier. However, this isn't an outright deathknell for 3PPs. It will certainly limit the market as it will undoubtedly price some 3PPs out of the market because they don't have the funding to build it from scratch, but that's how free markets operate.
My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
If some idiot down the line tries to clamp down again, we just remind them that we’re willing to walk away. And unless something causes ORC to crash and burn, the very existence of an alternative license will be a pressure against such actions. I’m not saying we can blithely trust everything they do, but ultimately they can’t afford to put the squeeze on too hard.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
If you really can’t trust them at all, then it’s simply time to walk away.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
... 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.
Because OGL 1.0a cannot be modified or altered. Or rather it can be, but no one cares because modifications to OGL 1.0a are opt-in and can be freely ignored by users of the license, which effectively and practically means the license cannot be modified or altered. The "Any Authorized Version" clause of OGL 1.0a means Wizards cannot insert protective clauses into 1.0a because then evil hateful bigots would just use the previous version of the OGL 1.0 that allows for evil hateful bigotry in products.
As for the VTT thing? I'm sorry, but I just cannot bring myself to care whether or not VTTs can use fancy-pancy animated renditions of Wizards' IP in their service. I do not, personally, see a problem as the restriction against Stuff That Doesn't Simulate Sitting Around The Table only applies if you want to make an SRD-enabled D&D plug-in for your VTT. Such plugins are manifestly unnecessary, as TaleSpire's entire existence conclusively demonstrates. Modders that make spell animation plug-ins available for free on community websites for existing VTTs are, I believe, a Fan Content policy thing, not an OGL thing. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me elsewise. Sorry.
My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
If some idiot down the line tries to clamp down again, we just remind them that we’re willing to walk away. And unless something causes ORC to crash and burn, the very existence of an alternative license will be a pressure against such actions. I’m not saying we can blithely trust everything they do, but ultimately they can’t afford to put the squeeze on too hard.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
That is a valid stance, but at that point there is nothing WotC/Hasbro can do to appease you or anyone holding that stance. Even making OGL 1.0a irrevocable doesn't prevent WotC/Hasbro from going nuclear if they so choose. You don't state it specifically here, but often this argument is couched in a slippery slope, "but they could..." scenario and there is no way to prevent that with any amount of legal language. Sure it would strengthen the position of the 3PP or player base challenging the action in court, but Hasbro could then just say "D&D is no longer profitable and we are halting production of content until further notice." We already know D&D is under-monitized so it isn't a stretch to say this could happen. We would still have the system, but all of their IP would be unavailable to us period.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
My understanding of the Paizo situation is that while they did voluntarily accept the union, the union was going to form anyway. had they not accepted it, it would have gone to a vote and everything I saw at the time and presently indicates they had the votes. It being voluntary is the equivalent of WotC in their recent posts saying the rules and things they can't prevent use of anyway are moving to the Creative Commons. It's a nice thing to say, but a moot point given the circumstances.
Someone writes something they think might be close to a line, they submit it prior to publication. If they get the thumbs up, Wizards can’t rescind that approval (assuming the material doesn’t change). If they get a thumbs down, they know what area(s) they need to fix to make it ok. They can choose to just go to print and take their chances, as well. But that carries the risk they’ll get closed down after the expense of going to press.
Or maybe wizards prints a list of sensitivity readers. If a 3pp hires someone off the list to give their product a review, and that reader says it’s ok, then it’s ok. Wizards creates a list of people they trust, but the 3pp writes the check. It gives WotC say in who is rating the product, but that person or group doesn’t owe their salary to wizards (at least not directly) so they have some independence. And WotC can change the list, but if someone was on it when they read your stuff, then that’s what matters.
For people afraid wizards will use this power as a cudgel and they shouldn’t have the authority at all, I hear you. I understand your point. But we’re past that. This is happening. For all their obfuscation, they’ve been clear and consistent from the beginning that this is one of their goals. You can try and find a way to make it better, but just saying no isn’t going anywhere.
You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
edit: fixing grammar
You are absolutely correct. I don’t like the no appeal thing either and I want the 3PP content also. But with everything else, it’s a question as to what people can live with. I’m betting some 3PP will go along with it. And WOTC is clearly betting on that also.
Right some. From my view, and this could be wrong it's just a guess, for Hasbro keeping this clause as is (if they do) is less about hateful content or trying to limit lawsuits than having 3PPs who are willing to trust Hasbro and play ball. They may not want 3PPs that don't trust Hasbro won't drive that sword through their throat if they get too big or just because Hasbro wants to start acting like Disney or Nintendo. I've said almost from the start this is less about money than it is about control. They want 3PPs that are on their wavelength and who have trust in them not 3PPs who believe lawyers when they say this clause is too broad and gives Hasbro too much power.
I've been in this space a long time and one thing that solidified my love of 3e was the Scarred Lands. Looking back on those book (Creature Collection and Relics and Rituals) I could see that there is a non zero chance that something dark like that would be strangled by Hasbro in the cradle under 1.2 if they wanted to. I can't believe I'm the only one who got very into the hobby (as an adult) thanks to material Hasbro wasn't interested or didn't think of publishing. The more 3PPs are chased away the less chance D&D going forward will be what I once liked.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
And once again 1.0a is placed on a pedestal as some brilliant and immovable pillar of open gaming. But it’s not. It is an offer, and one that WotC is choosing to withdraw at a future point. It’s very ambiguously worded, and honestly I wouldn’t be sure courts want to set a precedent that a company can be forced to leave an offer on the table forever. 1.2 could use some tweaks or clarifications, but I really don’t think 1.0a is the hill you want to make your stand on.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
So for you, there is no chance WotC can ever be trusted, even though they are offereing a lot right now, and haven't made 1.2 final? There is NOTHING WotC can do, in your opinion, that would make them trustworthy short of bowing down to your whims. SO essentially, you are irrelevant to improving 1.2.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
My concern was the language used. While today's WotC likely doesn't want to ruin things anymore then they already have, what about in 20 years? What happens when a new executive comes in and wants to abuse these loopholes?
I just want the loopholes closed, not to leave open for abuse later down the line.
EDIT: I think they should clearly state that if it is found in court to be unenforceable. Otherwise it still reads like someone at WotC can go "nah, we can't enforce the section about the creator badge (or whatever section really) so throw away the whole document." I don't want that, you don't want that (and I'm pretty sure WotC realistically doesn't want that). So yeah, they need to clear that up in my opinion.
Problems with OGL 1.2a from the perspective of a 3rd party publisher. (Very small, my first book is on kickstarter, now)
1) De-authorization of OGL 1.0a.
I write for Level Up! and the Gate Pass Gazette through EN Publishing using a sublicense of 1.0a. Once 1.0a is deauthorized, I cannot create more Level Up! or Gate Pass Gazette content. In fact no one can until either the OGL from Level Up! is removed through a Revised Edition (expensive) or EN Publishing re-publishes Level Up! with the new 1.2a license (less expensive, but locks them into 1.2a). But even the idea that WotC can unilaterally declare a version of the OGL to be "Deauthorized" results in a situation where every year, or few years, we wind up back at this point. With WotC creating their next OGL and all previous works by a company being locked down until either the OGL is removed (expensive) or they sign the new OGL (less expensive, but locks them into the new license)
It means I have no real legal protection, here, on my publishing, since the terms and conditions can change moment to moment. The OGL was implemented as a powerful foundation meant to give 3pp a sense of structure and stability around the use of the SRD to create more content for the game we all love and not fear going bankrupt to WotC's legal fees. The idea that the foundation of all of our work, and businesses, could be ripped up at a moment's notice so WotC can dictate terms on a -new- foundation is untenable.
The OGL 1.0a cannot be de-authorized if we're to move forward. It needs to be enshrined, permanently, as the 5e/3e legal document it was created to be.
If they want their new clauses, it needs to be an OGL/GSL situation. And we all saw how many people were willing to publish under the GSL.
2. The Morality Clause
Very nifty in theory. Very dangerous in practice. Particularly in their "Revoke the License at our discretion" with no legal recourse. I'm a bisexual transgender white woman, so the basic idea of WotC protecting my work and their own work from hateful and awful new works (like NuTSR's Star Frontiers boondoggle) is actually really joyous! But. It still gives them unilateral ability to decide what is and isn't hateful with no legal recourse or third party arbitration. Which could result in a tolerance of intolerance situation in which presenting bigots as bad guys is "Hateful Content" and my license gets pulled. I don't know if anyone is willing to risk that kind of nonsense.
3. The Illegality Clause
Again, seems like a great idea! You can't publish illegal content. What a no-brainer! But... LGBTQIA+ characters or existence being shown in a positive light is illegal in Russia. Paranormal Power includes a brief passage about a nonbinary child using Psionic Abilities. If I sell a copy of Paranormal Power to a Russian Citizen, I've broken Russian Law, and WotC would have legal authority to revoke my license. Even if WotC itself opposes that law, all it takes is one person at WotC with a modicum of power to say "I don't like this Steampunkette person and her work." and blammo. License revoked, no further content from me, and I have no legal recourse to oppose the decision.
Heck, Florida and other states are looking to pass laws where "Exposing Children" to LGBTQIA+ content or existence will be illegal. Which means I'd need to slap an 18+ warning on Paranormal Power to sell it in the US under OGL 1.2a to avoid getting my license revoked. How messed up is that?
4. Methods into Creative Commons
It's a nice gesture. But as every copyright and trademark lawyer has said over the past several weeks (and some have been screaming for years) you cannot copyright 1d20+Modifiers. It's a method or game rule rather than any form of specific protected intellectual property. By announcing they're putting the base rules of the game (but not anything they can apply IP law toward) into Creative Commons they've reached out with an olive branch made of balsa wood.
They're saying "We won't sue you into oblivion over these rules" which is great and all, but it also acknowledges that the only reason those rules were in the OGL before was an attempt to bully people into using it with legalese and the implication they'd sue us into oblivion. Even knowing they could never "Win" such a case they could drag it out over however long it took to bankrupt a 3rd party publisher.
So it's -kind- of a nothingburger and kind of a "This is already the status quo, we're just gonna make it official and unload one of the guns we've been pointing at your head in a show of good faith."
5. Summation
The OGL was meant to last forever. It was meant to be irrevocable and permanent. It was never meant to be "De-Authorized" at any point. The terms WotC is trying to use to get rid of it -now- did not exist as specific legal concepts when it was written, and the architects of the OGL have explained that, repeatedly. There is no situation where getting rid of the OGL 1.0a is a good thing or a positive step. Particularly since it shows WotC is entirely willing to blow up any deal it has previously made to increase the control and power they now possess for their shareholders.
WotC can no longer be trusted by third party publishers. There is no real "Path Forward" after this. The best they can do is enshrine 1.0a and pretend this fiasco never happened, but the ORC is still going to be written. And most publishers aware of this event will be signing on to it, or Creative Commons, or some other license that offers real stability long-term.
Even if they took out all the poison pills, it still can't be trusted. Wizards have shown they'll change terms whenever the like. No contract will ever be held in good faith.
If some idiot down the line tries to clamp down again, we just remind them that we’re willing to walk away. And unless something causes ORC to crash and burn, the very existence of an alternative license will be a pressure against such actions. I’m not saying we can blithely trust everything they do, but ultimately they can’t afford to put the squeeze on too hard.
The job of the legal division is to protect the company from liability. And stuff going out under their license with their IP on it puts them in the spotlight. I’m a lawyer, and if my client has a beef with a 3PP for stuff published under 1.2 I’m naming WOTC also. Their marks are there, they’re getting sued. It’s the way it goes. Public opinion or fairness is not the biggest issue for the legal department. Liability is. And in this day and age where people and companies get sued all the time? It’s irresponsible to not cover themselves. You can argue there should be a way to appeal, but even that puts liability out there as they will be seen to approve it. And the company is in the business of making money. If an agreement with 3PP is the way to do it, fine. If not, nope. It IS their IP after all. No arrangement is perfect but there might be enough here for them to go with it instead of the alternative of a different unknown system and likely lesser reach for their product. It’s a business and a legal decision for both sides. It has to be. I’m not saying WOTC is being smart about the whole thing. The history of this game is riddled with terrible decisions. But I understand their position and why they are doing what they’re doing. And that’s the light in which I myself will do what I think best in response. Others need to do the same for themselves.
I feel this is a "You Problem" ("You" as in Hasbro not "You" as in MikeyThe Keat). If Hasbro wants to make 3pp feel safe under this arrangement there has to be some give. If there isn't many (but not all) 3PPs will not want to sign on (and may even have this pointed out by lawyers they seek out for advice). Again, if Hasbro doesn't care that's on them, but as someone who wants more 3PP content and wants the community that's been built up with the concept of open gaming to continue I don't really like the fact there's no appeals process because it's pointing a sword to your throat and swearing up and down they'll never drive the sword through your throat and don't worry because if they kill you then people will be really mad at them. I know that seems a bit dramatic but it's best analogy I can think of atm!
edit: fixing grammar
You are absolutely correct. I don’t like the no appeal thing either and I want the 3PP content also. But with everything else, it’s a question as to what people can live with. I’m betting some 3PP will go along with it. And WOTC is clearly betting on that also.
Regardless, they cannot be trusted. The got caught with the hand in the cookie jar, and they tried to lie about it. It is good they have been forced to backpedal but we can't give any leniency now. If we give them an inch they will take a mile.
One thing that might help ease some people's worries I'd like to touch on. It has been pointed out before, but it's clear from the comments it's being ignored by many or at least undervalued. Any 3PP can produce content using the D20 system and rules regardless of the OGL. Where they run into an issue is the specific copyrighted materials WotC/Hasbro owns.
For example, I could publish an adventure using the rules with my own classes, monsters, npcs, storylines, etc. The OLG has nothing to do with that. Even if the content would be in violation of the OGL (any version). This is even true for hateful/harmful content.
What I can't do (focusing specifically on 1.2 now) is publish that adventure using the classes, monsters, npcs, storylines, etc. owned by WotC/hasbro through copyright. Then WatC/Hasbro can say, "Hey, you can't use our copyrighted material like that." There are questions as to what of those items are actually copyrightable on a case by case basis, but that discussion goes into the weeds a bit too far for our purposes. WotC can also say, "Hey, you can't use our logos" which is a similar but separate issue.
This is important to remember because there is substantial conflation in these arguments about how that could work. Is it ideal for 3PP to not use those copyrighted things? No, of course they would like to as it makes developing their product easier. However, this isn't an outright deathknell for 3PPs. It will certainly limit the market as it will undoubtedly price some 3PPs out of the market because they don't have the funding to build it from scratch, but that's how free markets operate.
If you really can’t trust them at all, then it’s simply time to walk away.
And yet here you are pushing Paizo's attempt to rehabilitate their image after they had serious internal mistreatment of employees as early as 2021... Are you even aware of that issue? Why would I trust them to be a champion of anything when they have proven they don't even treat their employees very well.
You're talking about the company that took the fairly extraordinary step of voluntarily recognizing their employee's Union, right? That company?
Because OGL 1.0a cannot be modified or altered. Or rather it can be, but no one cares because modifications to OGL 1.0a are opt-in and can be freely ignored by users of the license, which effectively and practically means the license cannot be modified or altered. The "Any Authorized Version" clause of OGL 1.0a means Wizards cannot insert protective clauses into 1.0a because then evil hateful bigots would just use the previous version of the OGL 1.0 that allows for evil hateful bigotry in products.
As for the VTT thing? I'm sorry, but I just cannot bring myself to care whether or not VTTs can use fancy-pancy animated renditions of Wizards' IP in their service. I do not, personally, see a problem as the restriction against Stuff That Doesn't Simulate Sitting Around The Table only applies if you want to make an SRD-enabled D&D plug-in for your VTT. Such plugins are manifestly unnecessary, as TaleSpire's entire existence conclusively demonstrates. Modders that make spell animation plug-ins available for free on community websites for existing VTTs are, I believe, a Fan Content policy thing, not an OGL thing. I have yet to see an argument that convinces me elsewise. Sorry.
Please do not contact or message me.
That is a valid stance, but at that point there is nothing WotC/Hasbro can do to appease you or anyone holding that stance. Even making OGL 1.0a irrevocable doesn't prevent WotC/Hasbro from going nuclear if they so choose. You don't state it specifically here, but often this argument is couched in a slippery slope, "but they could..." scenario and there is no way to prevent that with any amount of legal language. Sure it would strengthen the position of the 3PP or player base challenging the action in court, but Hasbro could then just say "D&D is no longer profitable and we are halting production of content until further notice." We already know D&D is under-monitized so it isn't a stretch to say this could happen. We would still have the system, but all of their IP would be unavailable to us period.
Because they were loosing money hand over fist, and still haven't proven they won't just do it again. Sound like an argument you are currently making?
The whole.. once a company shows us who they are, that is who they are argument many are making about WotC. Paizo is not a white knight, you all just easily forgive Racism and sexism, because they said nice stuff to you and it's been a year and a half.
Theyre more trustworthy because they take obvious, transparent actions to address things when confronted with them.
Most people aren't saying that WotC can Never ever regain the communities trust - but they need to take clear, transparent action with assurances and safeguards to make a start.
Given that there exists a good chance they can't even accomplish the deauthorization of 1.0a anyway, walking away from that point would be an excellent concession to establish start rebuilding trust. If they can't be relied upon to keep promises they made decades ago and provided assurances on until just recently, rebuilding trust really is going to be impossible.
My understanding of the Paizo situation is that while they did voluntarily accept the union, the union was going to form anyway. had they not accepted it, it would have gone to a vote and everything I saw at the time and presently indicates they had the votes. It being voluntary is the equivalent of WotC in their recent posts saying the rules and things they can't prevent use of anyway are moving to the Creative Commons. It's a nice thing to say, but a moot point given the circumstances.
What if a 3pp could get pre-approval?
Someone writes something they think might be close to a line, they submit it prior to publication. If they get the thumbs up, Wizards can’t rescind that approval (assuming the material doesn’t change). If they get a thumbs down, they know what area(s) they need to fix to make it ok. They can choose to just go to print and take their chances, as well. But that carries the risk they’ll get closed down after the expense of going to press.
Or maybe wizards prints a list of sensitivity readers. If a 3pp hires someone off the list to give their product a review, and that reader says it’s ok, then it’s ok. Wizards creates a list of people they trust, but the 3pp writes the check. It gives WotC say in who is rating the product, but that person or group doesn’t owe their salary to wizards (at least not directly) so they have some independence. And WotC can change the list, but if someone was on it when they read your stuff, then that’s what matters.
For people afraid wizards will use this power as a cudgel and they shouldn’t have the authority at all, I hear you. I understand your point. But we’re past that. This is happening. For all their obfuscation, they’ve been clear and consistent from the beginning that this is one of their goals. You can try and find a way to make it better, but just saying no isn’t going anywhere.
Right some. From my view, and this could be wrong it's just a guess, for Hasbro keeping this clause as is (if they do) is less about hateful content or trying to limit lawsuits than having 3PPs who are willing to trust Hasbro and play ball. They may not want 3PPs that don't trust Hasbro won't drive that sword through their throat if they get too big or just because Hasbro wants to start acting like Disney or Nintendo. I've said almost from the start this is less about money than it is about control. They want 3PPs that are on their wavelength and who have trust in them not 3PPs who believe lawyers when they say this clause is too broad and gives Hasbro too much power.
I've been in this space a long time and one thing that solidified my love of 3e was the Scarred Lands. Looking back on those book (Creature Collection and Relics and Rituals) I could see that there is a non zero chance that something dark like that would be strangled by Hasbro in the cradle under 1.2 if they wanted to. I can't believe I'm the only one who got very into the hobby (as an adult) thanks to material Hasbro wasn't interested or didn't think of publishing. The more 3PPs are chased away the less chance D&D going forward will be what I once liked.
Hopefuly that makes some sense.
And once again 1.0a is placed on a pedestal as some brilliant and immovable pillar of open gaming. But it’s not. It is an offer, and one that WotC is choosing to withdraw at a future point. It’s very ambiguously worded, and honestly I wouldn’t be sure courts want to set a precedent that a company can be forced to leave an offer on the table forever. 1.2 could use some tweaks or clarifications, but I really don’t think 1.0a is the hill you want to make your stand on.
So for you, there is no chance WotC can ever be trusted, even though they are offereing a lot right now, and haven't made 1.2 final? There is NOTHING WotC can do, in your opinion, that would make them trustworthy short of bowing down to your whims. SO essentially, you are irrelevant to improving 1.2.