Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
What's an example of the kind of thing where WotC would intervene with their moral police clause? Maybe I am being naive, but I think third-party publishers usually go for mass appeal (so nothing too controversial). What exactly do they imagine could happen in the future, where they would use their OGL to selectively revoke someone's license?
3pp don't go for mass appeal. They go for niche. And that's why it was so crucial for D&D's growth.
Some sucessful 3pp sell no more than a few hundred or few thousands of copies. But they cover topics that WotC would never do. For some communities, that was extremely important. Like, a book about women and mythology. Or another focused on LGBTQ+ issues.
I'll say it again, D&D became big and inclusive because of the complete OPEN 3pp. A morality clause would strike fear on any creative endeavor, as you definition of offensive could be much different from WotCs. When your entirely livelihood and business is dependent on such a clause, I bet it would stifle all creativity, and most would always play safe, so to speak
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
Can someone point me to any of these statements for either side of the argument. I realize the claim is they've been removed, but given this is the internet I find it hard to believe there is no way to access them. I have found FAQs on OGLs, but I have no way of confirming what I found is what is being referenced by anyone here.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
The faq on their website certainly implied it would always be an option. You'll have to check the archives of the internet to find it though, since they buried it when they realized it was going to be a liability.
And video games existed when 1.0a was written. They knew they were a thing. If they were intended to have been excluded, it would have said so.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
The faq on their website certainly implied it would always be an option. You'll have to check the archives of the internet to find it though, since they buried it when they realized it was going to be a liability.
And video games existed when 1.0a was written. They knew they were a thing. If they were intended to have been excluded, it would have said so.
When presenting something as fact is the burden of the presenter to supply the evidence. If I go looking for what you claim to exist there is no way I can guarantee what I find is what you reference. I could, and have found an FAQ that does not support your claim, but I'm not certain it is what you reference.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
They did, in fact say that people could ignore changes and continue using an old version. The FAQ has been taken down but official WotC policy on this at the time of 1.0a was:
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
Can someone point me to any of these statements for either side of the argument. I realize the claim is they've been removed, but given this is the internet I find it hard to believe there is no way to access them. I have found FAQs on OGLs, but I have no way of confirming what I found is what is being referenced by anyone here.
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
Yes, Irrelevant - people are demanding that Wizards withdraw 6f entirely and expressly allow racists to be racist with D&D. They want Wizards to have no power whatsoever over who can and cannot operate under an OGL license and to turn D&D into a safe haven for miscreants, reprobates, and ne'er-do-wells. That is explicitly what they're arguing for.
I've said at least half a dozen times that 6f is overreaching and needs adjustment. Personally, my preference would be for the same thirty-day "take steps to cure" thing to apply to 6f, so if a third-party house accidentally missteps like WIZARDS ITSELF did with the hadozee thing, the 3PP has room to correct while an incurably hateful book fundamentally cannot. I will absolutely not stand for putting written descriptions of what is and is not hateful in the license, and neither should anybody else. An appeals process wouldn't be amiss, but would also be rife for legal abuse. It's a sticky problem with no easy solution, unfortunate as that is.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
They did, in fact say that people could ignore changes and continue using an old version. The FAQ has been taken down but official WotC policy on this at the time of 1.0a was:
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
Thanks!
It's 100% crystal clear that Wizards believed the Community had the right to ignore any change they didn't like for something like 21 years, and the community relied on that assurance.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
I hate to sound like 'that guy' but I think its basically unrealistic for them to completely back down from this clause. I understand the reasoning behind it BUT it goes against the concept of open gaming in general but at this point one can only pray to St. Jude for the concept of open gaming with the SRD: it's a lost cause.
However, knowing that it is inevitable, this clause still sucks. There's no appeals process, no recourse, no detail on what 'hateful' means (maybe there's a specific legal definition in this context but I doubt it), and leaves everything in the hands of WOTC. I understand there will ALWAYS be wiggle room but if you look back at history with a few exceptions (BoEF) most of the bigoted missteps that have been made under the OGL have been WOTC themselves.* If we have to (sigh) accept this kind of clause there has to be, at minimum, a rider describing things in detail, a process where an advisory opinion can be recieved by WOTC before publication, and allow arbitration (at minimum) if a work is seen to have violated the clause.
*Don't bring up the nuTSR bigots they literally were sued under Trademark law and never used the OGL to my knowledge.
Wrong - Wizards has every right to regulate what gets published with their intellectual property, especially their trademark on it.
This is absolutely true. They have every right to do so, and I applaud it.
...but they can't torch an agreement they entered into freely, which they themselves claimed (in their FAQ, which they hid) was always going to be an option for those who wanted to use the OGL, in the case a new version of the OGL was released.
And again, that's not why they're revoking 1.0a, it's just a cover - their real motives are in the other changes they're making to restrict VTTs and videogames. If they drop those, I'll revisit whether I believe they're sincere in their goals to promote social justice.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
They did, in fact say that people could ignore changes and continue using an old version. The FAQ has been taken down but official WotC policy on this at the time of 1.0a was:
Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
Do you have a source for this? Not saying you are lying, but I'd like to read the whole thing for myself. If you can't provide the source more detail would be appreciated. For example, when was this FAQ available?
However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9.
This is why I want to see the whole thing. This sentence is consistent with WotC's current stance. Because it references already distributed material which under 1.2 will still be protected under 1.0a.
EDIT: you posted your source before I could finish my response. Thanks.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
Or you can attack the character of the opposing side and loudly ask "Wow it sure is getting racist in here. Won't someone stop the racists? Won't somebody please think of the children?"
The OGL is not an endorsement of the content it is used in. WotC aren't on the hook for other people's content any more than they are of my fanfiction. That people would blame WotC for what others would do with the OGL is reaching with no basis in reality.
I think it is telling that the defense for WotC's actions is that "someone" could do "something bad" that hasn't happened in 20 years and therefore anyone who opposes this massive overreach therefore must in some way be in support of the "something bad" or "they're immature babies wah wah".
Why don't we just call the new license the PATRIOT Gaming License 1.0? Then only terrorists wouldn't support the new gaming license!
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
So your argument is that WotC should have no rights in regards to defending the integrity of their IP? Because I'm not seeing an alternative in your post. I might suggest one, as I do think the process as described is so simple as to represent an overreach. A review/appeals process would help that clause be more palatable for those who include something they object to via oversight or unknown bias. Such a process could be:
WotC is made aware of an issue in a 3PP offering (internally or externally).
WotC informs the 3PP that a review has been started
WotC submits a review indicating items that need to be changed
3PP is allowed to change their offering to comply, withdraw the offering, or appeal
Depending on the decision made and the results of an appeal, the license remains, the product is published (or not) or the license is lost (or not)
But asking for WotC to relinquish control of their IP's integrity or the process of defending it is likely a non-starter with them, the same as it would be for most any IP owner, so any process or rule regarding IP integrity will ultimately be up to them as the IP's owner.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
So your argument is that WotC should have no rights in regards to defending the integrity of their IP? Because I'm not seeing an alternative in your post. I might suggest one, as I do think the process as described is so simple as to represent an overreach. A review/appeals process would help that clause be more palatable for those who include something they object to via oversight or unknown bias. Such a process could be:
WotC is made aware of an issue in a 3PP offering (internally or externally).
WotC informs the 3PP that a review has been started
WotC submits a review indicating items that need to be changed
3PP is allowed to change their offering to comply, withdraw the offering, or appeal
Depending on the decision made and the results of an appeal, the license remains, the product is published (or not) or the license is lost (or not)
But asking for WotC to relinquish control of their IP's integrity or the process of defending it is likely a non-starter with them, the same as it would be for most any IP owner, so any process or rule regarding IP integrity will ultimately be up to them as the IP's owner.
Factually, some of us don't oppose that.
We oppose them using this as a pretense for pursuing an effective monopoly and pursuing their business ambitions.
We oppose their specific implementation of these apparent goals.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it. It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
Yes, Irrelevant - people are demanding that Wizards withdraw 6f entirely and expressly allow racists to be racist with D&D. They want Wizards to have no power whatsoever over who can and cannot operate under an OGL license and to turn D&D into a safe haven for miscreants, reprobates, and ne'er-do-wells. That is explicitly what they're arguing for.
They are clearly not arguing for that, and you are only attacking the character of people whilst lacking the argument to support it.
As I have asked before, at what point did horrible things exactly happen, all people could come up with was the BoEF and nuTSR, the first barely amounting to anything and the second being swiftly slapped with a very justified lawsuit.
I agree with you that 6f needs adjustment, a large one, but you really need to stop attacking opinions you disagree with by painting them in a bad light. Very poor behaviour.
As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
To all those saying "the nuTSR thing isn't related to the OGL at all, it's not relevant!"
It could have been. Had Ernie G. been three brain cells smarter than a sack of root vegetables, he could have published his material under OGL 1.0a and effectively removed Wizards' ability to sue him over it or stop publication of the material. The fact that he didn't is because Ernie G. is not a smart man, not because OGL 1.0a doesn't permit hateful content. Wizards managed to juke a grenade on that one through sheer stupid luck, because yes - someone publishing hateful content under the OGL is effectively telling the entire world "Wizards endorses this product!" Because that's exactly what the OGL is - silent, automatic endorsement of anything written under its aegis.
Wizards wants to be allowed to not endorse hateful content, and to throw back any fresh grenades Ernie G. or anyone like him tries to throw in their IP. 6f goes too far, everybody can agree on that, but people saying "but Wizards COULD terminate a license unfairly! They COULD!" are not allowed to say "nobody would ever actually make hateful content under the OGL."
Because they could. Just like Wizards COULD use 6f to, theoretically, terminate a contract unfairly and maliciously, a third party bad actor COULD publish hateful content under OGL 1.0a and dare Wizards to stop them.
There was a legal saying I heard once that honestly strikes me as very apt for this whole debacle. Pardon to the forum's lawyers if I get this wrong, but paraphrasing:
If you don't have the facts, argue the law. If you don't have the law, argue the facts. If you don't have either, scream and pound the table.
There's a whole lot of screamy table-pounding going on here, and a whole lot of people defending hateful content any way they can. Yes, Section 6f DOES overreach, but we have a chance to do something about that. What we're NOT gonna get is Wizards giving people express permission to be evil hateful bigots while using D&D to do it.
Or you can attack the character of the opposing side and loudly ask "Wow it sure is getting racist in here. Won't someone stop the racists? Won't somebody please think of the children?"
The OGL is not an endorsement of the content it is used in. WotC aren't on the hook for other people's content any more than they are of my fanfiction. That people would blame WotC for what others would do with the OGL is reaching with no basis in reality.
In today's world, they absolutely are, especially if said content is published with their logon and IP, which is part of why folks product content with the OGL
I think it is telling that the defense for WotC's actions is that "someone" could do "something bad" that hasn't happened in 20 years and therefore anyone who opposes this massive overreach therefore must in some way be in support of the "something bad" or "they're immature babies wah wah".
How do you know something like this hasn't happened? I would guess probably not with the major 3PP producers (except to continue some of the ingrained stereotypes that WotC has previously included in their media and are now attempting to purge), but the smaller, fringe publishers? I'd be shocked if there wasn't racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory content out there under the 1.0a
Why don't we just call the new license the PATRIOT Gaming License 1.0? Then only terrorists wouldn't support the new gaming license!
Because they don't need people to like it. Corporations and Individuals that own IP have speech rights too (at least in the US), and part of that is what they allow to be done with the property they own in official capacities (remember, none of this stops your homebrew or table games...if you want orcs to be inherently brutish and evil, or the CoS Vistani to still exhibit the stereotypical view of the Romani peoples, you can do so at your table, but if you want to publish content officially, you have to comply with the intent of the properties owner).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
They never said it would "always be an option." They said it had no set end date. That's it.
And the OGL 1.0a never contained any promises about being available or intended for video games and every kind of VTT either.
This.
Can someone point me to any of these statements for either side of the argument. I realize the claim is they've been removed, but given this is the internet I find it hard to believe there is no way to access them. I have found FAQs on OGLs, but I have no way of confirming what I found is what is being referenced by anyone here.
The faq on their website certainly implied it would always be an option. You'll have to check the archives of the internet to find it though, since they buried it when they realized it was going to be a liability.
And video games existed when 1.0a was written. They knew they were a thing. If they were intended to have been excluded, it would have said so.
I don't think anyone is asking WoTC to allow racists to be racist with D&D. The problem is that under the excuse that something is racist they could withdraw the license without the content creator being able to do anything to prevent it.
It is ultimately a control measure. And a measure of pressure if necessary. That is, WoTC could use that clause to withdraw a publisher's license. They just have to claim that their content is "obscene", and that's it. There's nothing more to speak of. It's obscene because they say it's obscene.
It is an abusive clause no matter how you look at it.
When presenting something as fact is the burden of the presenter to supply the evidence. If I go looking for what you claim to exist there is no way I can guarantee what I find is what you reference. I could, and have found an FAQ that does not support your claim, but I'm not certain it is what you reference.
They did, in fact say that people could ignore changes and continue using an old version. The FAQ has been taken down but official WotC policy on this at the time of 1.0a was:
https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f
Yes, Irrelevant - people are demanding that Wizards withdraw 6f entirely and expressly allow racists to be racist with D&D. They want Wizards to have no power whatsoever over who can and cannot operate under an OGL license and to turn D&D into a safe haven for miscreants, reprobates, and ne'er-do-wells. That is explicitly what they're arguing for.
I've said at least half a dozen times that 6f is overreaching and needs adjustment. Personally, my preference would be for the same thirty-day "take steps to cure" thing to apply to 6f, so if a third-party house accidentally missteps like WIZARDS ITSELF did with the hadozee thing, the 3PP has room to correct while an incurably hateful book fundamentally cannot. I will absolutely not stand for putting written descriptions of what is and is not hateful in the license, and neither should anybody else. An appeals process wouldn't be amiss, but would also be rife for legal abuse. It's a sticky problem with no easy solution, unfortunate as that is.
Please do not contact or message me.
Thanks!
It's 100% crystal clear that Wizards believed the Community had the right to ignore any change they didn't like for something like 21 years, and the community relied on that assurance.
I hate to sound like 'that guy' but I think its basically unrealistic for them to completely back down from this clause. I understand the reasoning behind it BUT it goes against the concept of open gaming in general but at this point one can only pray to St. Jude for the concept of open gaming with the SRD: it's a lost cause.
However, knowing that it is inevitable, this clause still sucks. There's no appeals process, no recourse, no detail on what 'hateful' means (maybe there's a specific legal definition in this context but I doubt it), and leaves everything in the hands of WOTC. I understand there will ALWAYS be wiggle room but if you look back at history with a few exceptions (BoEF) most of the bigoted missteps that have been made under the OGL have been WOTC themselves.* If we have to (sigh) accept this kind of clause there has to be, at minimum, a rider describing things in detail, a process where an advisory opinion can be recieved by WOTC before publication, and allow arbitration (at minimum) if a work is seen to have violated the clause.
*Don't bring up the nuTSR bigots they literally were sued under Trademark law and never used the OGL to my knowledge.
Do you have a source for this? Not saying you are lying, but I'd like to read the whole thing for myself. If you can't provide the source more detail would be appreciated. For example, when was this FAQ available?
However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9.
This is why I want to see the whole thing. This sentence is consistent with WotC's current stance. Because it references already distributed material which under 1.2 will still be protected under 1.0a.
EDIT: you posted your source before I could finish my response. Thanks.
Or you can attack the character of the opposing side and loudly ask "Wow it sure is getting racist in here. Won't someone stop the racists? Won't somebody please think of the children?"
The OGL is not an endorsement of the content it is used in. WotC aren't on the hook for other people's content any more than they are of my fanfiction. That people would blame WotC for what others would do with the OGL is reaching with no basis in reality.
I think it is telling that the defense for WotC's actions is that "someone" could do "something bad" that hasn't happened in 20 years and therefore anyone who opposes this massive overreach therefore must in some way be in support of the "something bad" or "they're immature babies wah wah".
Why don't we just call the new license the PATRIOT Gaming License 1.0? Then only terrorists wouldn't support the new gaming license!
So your argument is that WotC should have no rights in regards to defending the integrity of their IP? Because I'm not seeing an alternative in your post. I might suggest one, as I do think the process as described is so simple as to represent an overreach. A review/appeals process would help that clause be more palatable for those who include something they object to via oversight or unknown bias. Such a process could be:
But asking for WotC to relinquish control of their IP's integrity or the process of defending it is likely a non-starter with them, the same as it would be for most any IP owner, so any process or rule regarding IP integrity will ultimately be up to them as the IP's owner.
I'm just a layman but the bold bit seems to be an acknowledgement that we could ignore any change and keep using the older version. Since they also said there's no reason to ever make a chance, I took that to mean you could ignore them and keep producing content under the old version.
Factually, some of us don't oppose that.
We oppose them using this as a pretense for pursuing an effective monopoly and pursuing their business ambitions.
We oppose their specific implementation of these apparent goals.
They are clearly not arguing for that, and you are only attacking the character of people whilst lacking the argument to support it.
As I have asked before, at what point did horrible things exactly happen, all people could come up with was the BoEF and nuTSR, the first barely amounting to anything and the second being swiftly slapped with a very justified lawsuit.
I agree with you that 6f needs adjustment, a large one, but you really need to stop attacking opinions you disagree with by painting them in a bad light. Very poor behaviour.
This is where the confusion arises. The quoted bit references Section 9 of the OGL, which states:
Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
https://www.d20srd.org/ogl.htm
Only authorized versions could be selected, that is why WotC feels the need to de-authorize 1.0a. This actually supports people saying it has to be de-authorized for WotC to implement the changes it wants. If the 3PP published any content in violation of 1.2 that 3PP could just claim they published under 1.0a rendering 1.2 pointless.
To all those saying "the nuTSR thing isn't related to the OGL at all, it's not relevant!"
It could have been. Had Ernie G. been three brain cells smarter than a sack of root vegetables, he could have published his material under OGL 1.0a and effectively removed Wizards' ability to sue him over it or stop publication of the material. The fact that he didn't is because Ernie G. is not a smart man, not because OGL 1.0a doesn't permit hateful content. Wizards managed to juke a grenade on that one through sheer stupid luck, because yes - someone publishing hateful content under the OGL is effectively telling the entire world "Wizards endorses this product!" Because that's exactly what the OGL is - silent, automatic endorsement of anything written under its aegis.
Wizards wants to be allowed to not endorse hateful content, and to throw back any fresh grenades Ernie G. or anyone like him tries to throw in their IP. 6f goes too far, everybody can agree on that, but people saying "but Wizards COULD terminate a license unfairly! They COULD!" are not allowed to say "nobody would ever actually make hateful content under the OGL."
Because they could. Just like Wizards COULD use 6f to, theoretically, terminate a contract unfairly and maliciously, a third party bad actor COULD publish hateful content under OGL 1.0a and dare Wizards to stop them.
Mayhaps the answer lies between those two points?
Please do not contact or message me.
In today's world, they absolutely are, especially if said content is published with their logon and IP, which is part of why folks product content with the OGL
How do you know something like this hasn't happened? I would guess probably not with the major 3PP producers (except to continue some of the ingrained stereotypes that WotC has previously included in their media and are now attempting to purge), but the smaller, fringe publishers? I'd be shocked if there wasn't racist, sexist, or otherwise discriminatory content out there under the 1.0a
Because they don't need people to like it. Corporations and Individuals that own IP have speech rights too (at least in the US), and part of that is what they allow to be done with the property they own in official capacities (remember, none of this stops your homebrew or table games...if you want orcs to be inherently brutish and evil, or the CoS Vistani to still exhibit the stereotypical view of the Romani peoples, you can do so at your table, but if you want to publish content officially, you have to comply with the intent of the properties owner).