I don't know if someone brought this up ( too many pages), but the document references that they will follow some policies outside of the OGL, which can change constantly. So, in other words, I'm not changing the OGL, but I'm placing a variable in there that I can modify. Did I get this correctly?
They included multiple instances of things like this, where the new document provides a means for them to alter it or void it essentially at will.
I burst out laughing at the notion that the old license is to allow anyone to use their IP and make TT games, VTT stuff and video games freely, in whatever methods they want and that this should be OK. Obviously from someone who has never and will never create something of their own. Those who might one day create something at least understand and appreciate that allowing someone else to come in, grab YOUR creation and exploit it in whatever manner they want isn't ok. In fact, this from the same voice who rants that WotC could do that to others.
So a major corporation stealing someone's idea and creation is a horrible crime, but a smaller organization stealing from a big one is fine. What a strange world to live in.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Talk to your Players.Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
I burst out laughing at the notion that the old license is to allow anyone to use their IP and make TT games, VTT stuff and video games freely, in whatever methods they want and that this should be OK. Obviously from someone who has never and will never create something of their own. Those who might one day create something at least understand and appreciate that allowing someone else to come in, grab YOUR creation and exploit it in whatever manner they want isn't ok. In fact, this from the same voice who rants that WotC could do that to others.
So a major corporation stealing someone's idea and creation is a horrible crime, but a smaller organization stealing from a big one is fine. What a strange world to live in.
It was literally in the FAQ that Wizards hosted that using the old OGL to make electronic tools video games was reasonable and allowed. For close to twenty years.
Its not a niche interpretation, its the official interpretation for the vast majority of the time since the first version of the OGL was conceived.
From what I understand WotC is no longer honoring the terms of 1.0 on any NEW content created by third parties. Correct? The old stuff is still safe and under the old 1.0 agreement but nothing new will fall under it.
If so then we no longer have to worry about anyone publishing under that agreement. Which means that WotC now has full control of any content that someone wants to place their logo's on. All the new stuff must go through them for approval first. So everyone who is worried about questionable content being produced under a WotC logo is safe, it will just not happen. WotC at this moment has full ability to just take people to court for placing their logo on unapproved content.
If they end up giving you ANY OGL agreement it will be on their terms. If they end up issuing one it will only be to reduce their need for a review staff on 3rd party content. There are not so many third party content creators that they can not have the staff they just do not want to hire someone to just sit around all day and read.
A billion dollar company not willing to take its own IP protection into its own hands and just trust the community to use their logos until someone complains is in my opinion irresponsible. This whole OGL agreement is to just save themselves half a million a year in new employee costs. Something they can easily afford.
I don't know if someone brought this up ( too many pages), but the document references that they will follow some policies outside of the OGL, which can change constantly. So, in other words, I'm not changing the OGL, but I'm placing a variable in there that I can modify. Did I get this correctly?
Depends what you mean by get it correctly. The main variable clauses are "no illegal conduct" and "no hateful content or conduct". The first is mostly not under WotC control, the second depends on who's judging it, which is why it's more of a sticky point because they set themselves as sole arbiter. The section on severability also fails to identify which portions of the contract are essential (there's also a reference to the VTT policy, but that's not relevant to what OGL 1.2 covers).
Most of this stuff would be completely unexceptional as a fan content policy, but for people with a real investment I can understand some degree of concern.
I don't know if someone brought this up ( too many pages), but the document references that they will follow some policies outside of the OGL, which can change constantly. So, in other words, I'm not changing the OGL, but I'm placing a variable in there that I can modify. Did I get this correctly?
Depends what you mean by get it correctly. The main variable clauses are "no illegal conduct" and "no hateful content or conduct". The first is mostly not under WotC control, the second depends on who's judging it, which is why it's more of a sticky point because they set themselves as sole arbiter. The section on severability also fails to identify which portions of the contract are essential (there's also a reference to the VTT policy, but that's not relevant to what OGL 1.2 covers).
Most of this stuff would be completely unexceptional as a fan content policy, but for people with a real investment I can understand some degree of concern.
I think what was meant originally was references to the VTT policy. That policy can be changed at any time, thus the OGL references variable policies.
Also, it references a style guide that may change at any time, thus making your product noncompliant.
Also, there is nothing immutable about the 1.2. It can be revoked in part or in whole at any time. The difference I am seeing is that, anything produced under the license cannot be retroactively taken away, and probably could still be sold after a change in the OGL. Ie if I put out a book that complies with 1.2 and they move to 1.3, I can still sell that book, just nothing new. It is the same way they are treating 1.0a.
Also, it states clearly that section 5a can be changed at any time. That section is about attribution. Also, section 9a which I think is only changeable because technology for contacting people may change. Probably nothing to see here at all.
Lastly, that was all just my opinion, and I could be very wrong. I am probably wrong. I once played a Kender, so that likely makes me wrong about everything.
Also, there is nothing immutable about the 1.2. It can be revoked in part or in whole at any time. The difference I am seeing is that, anything produced under the license cannot be retroactively taken away, and probably could still be sold after a change in the OGL. Ie if I put out a book that complies with 1.2 and they move to 1.3, I can still sell that book, just nothing new. It is the same way they are treating 1.0a.
Irrevokable just means that it can't be revoked for anything it currently covers, not that it covers future content. However, irrevokable means that if they put the 5.1 SRD under 1.2 (with the clause about irrevokability), you can still reference/include the 5.1 SRD, under the terms of the 1.2 OGL, in content even if they move to a new OGL -- though if they put out a new SRD and it's under 1.3, the 1.2 OGL will not be relevant to the new SRD, just the old one.
Also, it states clearly that section 5a can be changed at any time. That section is about attribution. Also, section 9a which I think is only changeable because technology for contacting people may change. Probably nothing to see here at all.
The intent is fine, but there's nothing in the text forbidding them from putting extraneous clauses in there, which might be a problem (if they tried, a court might disagree about their ability to do so).
Wizards needs to recognise that the good faith and trust in its intentions which took years to build has been massively damaged over the last period. If it seeks to regain that trust and goodwill (and maintain the market share which accompanies it) then this new OGL must be free of loopholes, which will just be seen as attempts to hide its 'true intentions' from the community. To that end:
6(f) - While the claimed intent to this clause is admirable, 'We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action' creates a combination which can absolutely be abused by Wizards should it wish to do so. Giving itself exemption from the 'reasonable person' test and making that decision unchallengeable does not read as good faith on Wizards' part.
7(b)(i) - Fairly problematic in general, but especially in combination with the issues in 6(f).
9(d) - Again, easily manipulated and abusable by Wizards and frankly 'declare the entire license void...in its entirety' reads like not only a blatant attempt to be able to get out of the license at any time it wishes, but a poorly concealed attempt at that.
Contrast that with OGL 1.0(a) clause 14. 'Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.'
One is perfectly acceptable, the other is not.
9(e) - Everyone is aware that Hasbro has deeper pockets than anyone else. So 'individual litigation' and 'irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action' simply reads as an attempt to completely shut down the ability for third parties to mount an effective challenge.
On OGL 1.0(a) - I care less about the whole 'deauthorisation' issue than most. However. If I were a significant third party creator and it were a choice between accepting OGL 1.2 as presented (with all of the additional power it gives Wizards) and joining with other creators to challenge the deauthorisation in court, I would probably choose the latter.
On VTTs - There a number of issues with this which I am sure many people will cover. However the biggest issue is that as a 'policy', the entire thing can be changed as Wizards' whim without recourse. Again, in this environment where Wizards has lost the trust of the community, this looks like it is reserving the ability to shut down any competition whenever it sees fit.
At the end of the day, it boils down to 'do we wish to regain trust or just give ourselves as much power as possible'? That decision is up to them, but it is worth remembering that especially in the TTRPG space, 'goodwill and trust' do have a direct relationship with 'market share and profit'.
If I were Wizards' lawyers, I would probably insist on all of those provisions as well, because it's their job to give you as much leverage and protection as possible (and let's be honest, cover their own behinds).
However 'rebuilding trust and maintaining relationships' and all of the associated consequences is not the lawyers' job - so if I were Wizards and I were actually approaching this in good faith, as opposed to attempting to manipulate the community, I would remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good'.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They included multiple instances of things like this, where the new document provides a means for them to alter it or void it essentially at will.
I burst out laughing at the notion that the old license is to allow anyone to use their IP and make TT games, VTT stuff and video games freely, in whatever methods they want and that this should be OK. Obviously from someone who has never and will never create something of their own. Those who might one day create something at least understand and appreciate that allowing someone else to come in, grab YOUR creation and exploit it in whatever manner they want isn't ok. In fact, this from the same voice who rants that WotC could do that to others.
So a major corporation stealing someone's idea and creation is a horrible crime, but a smaller organization stealing from a big one is fine. What a strange world to live in.
Talk to your Players. Talk to your DM. If more people used this advice, there would be 24.74% fewer threads on Tactics, Rules and DM discussions.
It was literally in the FAQ that Wizards hosted that using the old OGL to make electronic tools video games was reasonable and allowed. For close to twenty years.
Its not a niche interpretation, its the official interpretation for the vast majority of the time since the first version of the OGL was conceived.
From what I understand WotC is no longer honoring the terms of 1.0 on any NEW content created by third parties. Correct? The old stuff is still safe and under the old 1.0 agreement but nothing new will fall under it.
If so then we no longer have to worry about anyone publishing under that agreement. Which means that WotC now has full control of any content that someone wants to place their logo's on. All the new stuff must go through them for approval first.
So everyone who is worried about questionable content being produced under a WotC logo is safe, it will just not happen.
WotC at this moment has full ability to just take people to court for placing their logo on unapproved content.
If they end up giving you ANY OGL agreement it will be on their terms. If they end up issuing one it will only be to reduce their need for a review staff on 3rd party content.
There are not so many third party content creators that they can not have the staff they just do not want to hire someone to just sit around all day and read.
A billion dollar company not willing to take its own IP protection into its own hands and just trust the community to use their logos until someone complains is in my opinion irresponsible.
This whole OGL agreement is to just save themselves half a million a year in new employee costs. Something they can easily afford.
Depends what you mean by get it correctly. The main variable clauses are "no illegal conduct" and "no hateful content or conduct". The first is mostly not under WotC control, the second depends on who's judging it, which is why it's more of a sticky point because they set themselves as sole arbiter. The section on severability also fails to identify which portions of the contract are essential (there's also a reference to the VTT policy, but that's not relevant to what OGL 1.2 covers).
Most of this stuff would be completely unexceptional as a fan content policy, but for people with a real investment I can understand some degree of concern.
I think what was meant originally was references to the VTT policy. That policy can be changed at any time, thus the OGL references variable policies.
Also, it references a style guide that may change at any time, thus making your product noncompliant.
Also, there is nothing immutable about the 1.2. It can be revoked in part or in whole at any time. The difference I am seeing is that, anything produced under the license cannot be retroactively taken away, and probably could still be sold after a change in the OGL. Ie if I put out a book that complies with 1.2 and they move to 1.3, I can still sell that book, just nothing new. It is the same way they are treating 1.0a.
Also, it states clearly that section 5a can be changed at any time. That section is about attribution. Also, section 9a which I think is only changeable because technology for contacting people may change. Probably nothing to see here at all.
Lastly, that was all just my opinion, and I could be very wrong. I am probably wrong. I once played a Kender, so that likely makes me wrong about everything.
The VTT policy doesn't refer to anything covered by OGL 1.2 in the first place.
Irrevokable just means that it can't be revoked for anything it currently covers, not that it covers future content. However, irrevokable means that if they put the 5.1 SRD under 1.2 (with the clause about irrevokability), you can still reference/include the 5.1 SRD, under the terms of the 1.2 OGL, in content even if they move to a new OGL -- though if they put out a new SRD and it's under 1.3, the 1.2 OGL will not be relevant to the new SRD, just the old one.
The intent is fine, but there's nothing in the text forbidding them from putting extraneous clauses in there, which might be a problem (if they tried, a court might disagree about their ability to do so).
Wizards needs to recognise that the good faith and trust in its intentions which took years to build has been massively damaged over the last period. If it seeks to regain that trust and goodwill (and maintain the market share which accompanies it) then this new OGL must be free of loopholes, which will just be seen as attempts to hide its 'true intentions' from the community. To that end:
6(f) - While the claimed intent to this clause is admirable, 'We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action' creates a combination which can absolutely be abused by Wizards should it wish to do so. Giving itself exemption from the 'reasonable person' test and making that decision unchallengeable does not read as good faith on Wizards' part.
7(b)(i) - Fairly problematic in general, but especially in combination with the issues in 6(f).
9(d) - Again, easily manipulated and abusable by Wizards and frankly 'declare the entire license void...in its entirety' reads like not only a blatant attempt to be able to get out of the license at any time it wishes, but a poorly concealed attempt at that.
Contrast that with OGL 1.0(a) clause 14. 'Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.'
One is perfectly acceptable, the other is not.
9(e) - Everyone is aware that Hasbro has deeper pockets than anyone else. So 'individual litigation' and 'irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action' simply reads as an attempt to completely shut down the ability for third parties to mount an effective challenge.
On OGL 1.0(a) - I care less about the whole 'deauthorisation' issue than most. However. If I were a significant third party creator and it were a choice between accepting OGL 1.2 as presented (with all of the additional power it gives Wizards) and joining with other creators to challenge the deauthorisation in court, I would probably choose the latter.
On VTTs - There a number of issues with this which I am sure many people will cover. However the biggest issue is that as a 'policy', the entire thing can be changed as Wizards' whim without recourse. Again, in this environment where Wizards has lost the trust of the community, this looks like it is reserving the ability to shut down any competition whenever it sees fit.
At the end of the day, it boils down to 'do we wish to regain trust or just give ourselves as much power as possible'? That decision is up to them, but it is worth remembering that especially in the TTRPG space, 'goodwill and trust' do have a direct relationship with 'market share and profit'.
If I were Wizards' lawyers, I would probably insist on all of those provisions as well, because it's their job to give you as much leverage and protection as possible (and let's be honest, cover their own behinds).
However 'rebuilding trust and maintaining relationships' and all of the associated consequences is not the lawyers' job - so if I were Wizards and I were actually approaching this in good faith, as opposed to attempting to manipulate the community, I would remember that 'perfect is the enemy of good'.