Deauthorization of OGL 1.0a: They still want to deauthorize the use of the old license for new content. No. This is unacceptable. What if I want to make stuff 3rd edition based games. What if I want to add stuff for Iron Heroes, Pathfinder 1st, hells bells No. Leave the old SRD's alone. The New OGL should only be for New content. If anything, and this would shift the community view on WotC instantly, give the old rules out as Public Domain. Put 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5, and 4th edition rules up on a free to use never expire agreement, give those out to ORC, work with the community, not against it.
While I agree, releasing the SRD's up to 5.1 to ORC or into some other creative commons would alleviate most of my problems with 1.2/2.0, it would not shift my view much, since, from my POV this action is 1) Unchanged from previous iterations of the OGL and very much in line with my expectations. That's my red line that, if WotC crosses it, for any reason, they never see a dime from me ever again. WotC always had the right to publish a NEW product with NEW licensing terms, or propose a shiny new license for badge-recognition that has harsher rules. They never had the right to "de-authorize" 1.0a, and the idea that they would even try gauls. It's scammy in the same league as stealing money from a charity you set up with your name on it.
1. LICENSED CONTENT: (a) Content Covered: (i):"This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license) that is not licensed to you under Creative Commons. You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license."
Does this mean they can change the SRD at any time? Sure they could add stuff, which would be cool to see the SRD content grow over time. But they could also remove stuff, meaning entire swaths of OGL licensed content could suddenly be in breach of the OGL, which means that any 3rd party content under the OGL is putting the future profitablity of their content in the hands of Wizards.
Needs to be more specific on how the SRD can and cannot be changed, with express confirmation that works published using a version of the OGL will not be held accountable for breach of license if the SRD is changed after publication.
6. WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMERS: (f) No Hateful Content or Conduct."[You represent and warrant that] You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. 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."
With no concrete definition for what constitutes "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" content, this allows Wizards the power revoke licenses from any work if they can kinda, sorta justify maybe someone, somewhere possibly taking offense to it. Nothing in this document so much as suggests that they have to hold themselves to the same standard, meaning 3rd party OGL licensees are at the whims of Wizard's hypocracy. Especially since D&D has, even very recently, released harmful, hateful, etc material in their own work.
This also takes away basically any legal way for a 3rd party company, under this OGL, to contest a decision to revoke the license based on this. Not only can they decide your work is harmful, without any proof or oversight, they take away your right to defend your work.
Needs a clear, referenceable definition of "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" material and promotion thereof.
Needs a confirmation that Wizards will hold themselves to the same standards they will hold OGL licensees to in this regard, as well as an avenue for 3rd parties to hold them accountable for breaching those standards.
Must remove that forfeiting of legal rights.
7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION: (a) Modification: "We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision."
For reference:
5. YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT:"You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available."
(a)"You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license either by including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work or by applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines." (b)"You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license."
-
As they can modify the attribution required under section 5, that means they can, at any point, redefine any point in this section. Meaning attributed ownership of 3rd party content is at Wizards' whims. They can also change HOW you control your content, whether you can license your own original work, what you must include to use OGL content, etc. It also does not provide any protections to works released before modifications to this section are made.
Needs specifications for what Wizards can and cannot modify in this section, as well as confirmed protections for works published before modifications to section are made official.
For refence:
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
(a) Notices. "We may notify you by any email or physical address we can locate for you. Only if we cannot locate your email or physical address after a reasonable search, notice via a public channel is sufficient. You may provide notice to us of your email or physical address, or any other notice, by emailing oglnotices@wizards.com."
-
Section 9 (a) ultimately means nothing, as they can change this section on a whim. Meaning that they can redefine how they can notify you, or any requirements you need to make to receive notifications, including regestering accounts, providing personal or professional details, etc.
Needs to specify that, in regards to 9.(a), new avenues of notification can be added, but old avenues of notification cannot be removed, and that the licensee can determine the preferred method of notice.
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION: (b) Termination (i):"We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."
Once again, termination of license without reproach based on Wizards' interpretation of "harmful" material.
Needs: See response to section 6 (f)
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION: (b) Termination (ii):"We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach."
Once again, no provisions or protections for material that is already in print/production at the time when this document is modified.
Needs clear confirmation of protections for material already in publication at time of modifications made to the OGL.
9. MISCELLANEOUS: (d) Severability: "If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
Are you serious? What is the ******* point then? You can literally pull the plug making any content under the OGL 1.2 null and void, any time they don't get their way? No. Why would anyone stake their businesses on an license that can disappear the second the license-holders feel like they aren't getting their way? It's completely unacceptable.
Needs confirmation that Wizards will not declare the entire license void if a part of it is held as unenforceable or invalid. Make "the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist" part Wizards only choice for this situation.
9. MISCELLANEOUS: (g) Waiver of Jury Trial:"We and you each waive any right to a jury trial of any dispute, claim or cause of action related to or arising out of this license."
Of course not, you fools. No one should sign their legal rights away.
Remove it.
9. MISCELLANEOUS: (h) Review by Counsel:"You should seek advice of counsel to make sure you understand this license. You agree that you had the opportunity to do so."
Well, no. If this is referring to legal council, not everyone has access to that. It's expensive, and presents an unnecessary high bar for entry for smaller 3rd party developers. It's also unclear what agreeing to this statement actually changes about your position as a licensee.
Specify what rights or avenues of recourse you forfeit by agreeing to this section.
and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license).
This wording feels weird and very very specific.
Do they mean "Hey we cant ever take this license back?"
Or do they mean "You cant ever withdraw content you make from this license, everything you make will in perpetuity need to work with us and subsequent versions of this contract"
It means, they can release a new license any time, de-athorize this one, and start the dance all over, and people will be less pissed because they already did it before and we already flipped our lids. Fool me once...
And then, finally, WTF? No VTT uses NFT's and the majority of the Community is actually against the use of NFTs, so why the Hell are you saying: "or your VTT integrates our content into an NFT, that’s not the tabletop experience." Is this what WotC plans with their VTT? This sounds more like an Anti-Competition agreement, and really becomes SUS with the inclusion of NFT language. NO ONE BESIDES HASBRO IS SELLING NFTs!!!!!
next... saying what art can be used in a VTT, this is a bad take, WotC owns a copyright on many things, and owns the rights to their own Art, but if someone makes a BirdBear monster that looks like an Owl with a Bear Body they can totally and legally do it if they make their own art for it. This bit is just saying the VTT agrees to not use any art that resembles any art in D&D. Which means a Wizard with a Pointed Hat can be called a copy of the WotC logo because it superficially looks similar, so WotC can shut down your license.
Then we have a promise by WotC to DMCA VTTs they don't like.
I am almost certain that that is EXACTLY their plan. Collectors editions with NFT limited edition artworks and tokens. Free money as far as WotC is concerned. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure the execs at Wizards know about as much about NFTs and blockchain technology as they do about how to apologize for things... that is to say, they point at someone and tell them "you do it."
The mere fact that they're still trying to deauthorize the current OGL to force everyone into this new one just rubs me the wrong way. It feels entirely wrong to the entire community, the antithesis of the game.
Like; why shouldn't I be able to put out a 5e adventure a year from now under the current OGL? Why would that hurt them, or One D&D? I'd be using the rules that every other third party publisher has used for the last 20 years, and it hasn't had any giant issues as far as I'm aware...
So why?
Because 5.1 and 5.5 are too similar and it will create brand confusion. People will be able to make content that is forwards compatible and slap a 5e sticker on it. There would be zero incentive to use the new license, and, rather than offering a carrot (badges, access to the beyond marketplace, etc) they went with the stick instead. USE THIS ONE OR WE SUE YOU INTO THE GROUND!!!
how could we believe anything new if they are steping back in their last agreement?
To be fair, they are clearly already walking back this agreement too, hence the language calling the license "irrevocable meaning some other thing that is clearly meant to mean the opposite of something that is irrevocable"
We can use all the rules we want, in any way we want, without the OGL (any version) at all. Offering us a license on things which are already ours is nonsense. Don't waste our time. Quit trying to license it to us.
Honestly, at this point, Hasbro/WotC have nothing to offer except the use of actual Trademarked & Copyrighted content. Which they don't want to do.
So, in turn, I don't want to ever give them another penny, directly or indirectly. That, I assure you, will hold true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION: (b) Termination (i):"We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."
Once again, termination of license without reproach based on Wizards' interpretation of "harmful" material.
Needs: See response to section 6 (f)
MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION: (b) Termination (ii):"We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach."
Once again, no provisions or protections for material that is already in print/production at the time when this document is modified.
Needs clear confirmation of protections for material already in publication at time of modifications made to the OGL.
No. This needs to be gone. There is no world anywhere where someone publishes anything using a license that can be arbitrarily tossed in the shredder for any reason with 30 days notice, and you have no recourse. This is an ABSOLUTE poison pill. The license needs to be IRON CLAD or it's worthless. In fact, it's worse than worthless. It's a Trojan Horse hoping that you'll open the gates because posiedon is watching and he gets angry when you burn giant wooden horses. ... wait, ah... what? Where am I?
I would like to point out that decisions on a license is a legal document and decisions on that license are best left to legal experts in this particular field.
Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro asking the end-users in general to decide on the license details without legal council is suspect at best and outright nefarious at worst. With that given, the D&D end users should not agree to ANYTHING without legal council stating the true meaning of such an agreement actually means.
For instance, Section three points (a) and (b). While I'm not a lawyer, it appears to basically state. We will get to use your content (ala, no injunctive relief meaning it will go out no matter what) and we might pay you some money for breach of contract, but we will severally limit your recourse in the matter. (Yeah, hell no. Breaches play out in court the way the court allows)
Again, Section 6 point (f). IT says no hate speech, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engaging in conduct that is harmful, etc... then it says that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro has the SOLE RIGHT to decide what conduct or content is hateful. What does this mean? It means if they don't like something, they can slap mean or harmful on it and strip you of your ability to product your hard work. Let me repeat that. THEY CAN REJECT THE LICENSE TO YOU FOR ANY REASON AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION! (THIS IS A SUPER HARD NO!)
Section 7 as a whole. Rejected. If there is a breach, then it plays out in court and with court authorized options like injunctive relief preventing a 3PP product from being sold if it contains infringing copyrighted content. We do not need Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro dictating terms of 3PP content creators legal response.
Section 9, point (c): Remove this clause. If someone infringes on your rights and you decide not to peruse it. Then the court may decide you have waved your legal rights. You may not just change your mind later on and go after something several years later. This is how the courts work, this is how this agreement must work also.
Section 9, point (d): No! This could result in enormous damages for 3PP if something changes in the legal system that ends up causing part of the agreement to no longer be valid. This cannot be used as a cause for complete termination of this agreement. An event of this nature theoretically could be used to destroy a 3PP company.
Section 9, point (3): Rejected. It is the class action threat against Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro that helped force WotC / Hasbro to backdown in the first place. We must preserve the ability to protect ourselves from Corporate Greed. It is Corporate Greed that started this entire mess in the first place. We do not and will not ever trust Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro in the future. It is these legally binding and concrete legal agreements that protect us against them. (it is us vs them)
Section 9, point (g): Again, Rejected for the same reason. We will have the right to a jury trial.
There is always the option to rewrite the SRD in our *own* words and give it a REAL perpetual and irrevocable Open Source license.
Also, I would not allow the ability to unauthorize OGL 1.0a. This would strip existing rights and slap the above legally limiting of your rights to your existing work!
1. All rules are unburdened by copyright or trademark by law - we can all use them in any way wish wish. 2. See #1 3. It is inappropriate for you to attempt to control the venue for legal complaints on something you have no right to license in the first place. 4. No problems here, you own any copyrighted or trademarked product created by WotC. 5. Duh. 6. (f)You cant stop free speech, even that which we disagree with. As a private company, you have no place controlling the speech of others, ever, under any circumstances, period, outside of the sole scenario where you are distributing said speech. Then you can editorialize all you want. (Note: I agree 100% that your products should be constrained by the company values). 7. Threat of terminating a license for which there is no need.... whatevs 8. Yada 9. Yada
So there it is, my feedback.
I didn't bother reading your "FAQ" or "reasoning" because they are 100% irrelevant. We don't care WHY you do things, only WHAT you are trying to do with your "improved" licensing.
It's kind of late to fire upper management (who seriously should have never held the job, clearly), but that is sort of self solving at this point thanks to the massive revenue loss coming.
Edit: Saw in many other posts a comment regarding legal council. Perhaps someone less CG can put together a GoFundMe to pay for legal counsel on telling WotC to go F themselves.
Never sign a contract (or accept a license like this) that incorporates other documents by reference. Especially if those documents are in the hands of the other party and can be changed at will.
The style guidelines are not included, the link takes you to Wizard's home page instead of to the style-guide, and that guide does not even appear to yet exist. 5a states that you need to either include either the full-text of the license, or the badge under the then-current guidelines.
Section 7a permits them to change the attribution requirements in 5a, so they could legally take out of the part about including the full-text of the license and change the style-guide to say whatever they want it to. It could be changed to effectivly re-insert the registration and royalty requirements as part of using the badge, for example. Or even just change the whole section and put in whatever requirements they want to as part of the attribution.
So at the very least, they need to break 5a into two sub-sections, and leave the 'include the full text' option as immutable, with 7a being revised to only permit them to change the (then forever optional) badging guidelines.
Proposed change:
5. YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT. You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available
(a) You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license either by:
(i) including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work, or
(ii) applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines.
7(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5(a)(i) and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.
Now there is enough wrong with the rest of it that even then I would not recommend anyone use it even with that change, but that at the very least needs to change in order to remove a loophole that I very much hope was not intended to ever be used.
My opening response to the survey. 2:59 PM · Jan 20, 2023
#DnD #OpenDnD #DnDBegone
Is it better and in the right direction yes. Is it flawed, Greatly.
Past SRD content needs to remain valid, and 1.0a needs to remain in effect. People still play 3.0 D20 games, and the support for those should never be compromised. People for nearly a Decade have been supporting 5th Edition, and that support should not be compromised.
Remove the Poison Pill Clauses, and the Waiver of Rights guarantied by the US Constitution.
VTT's and Video Games should still be covered fully and without restriction under the OGL.
WotC are not Stewards of Morality, or Table Top Gaming, stop trying to be.
Fire the guy who wants NFTs in your VTT, since you seem hyper focused on something that is not being done by anyone but Hasbro.
Honestly, I doubt anyone will read this, but if I wanted to increase D&D's earnings, I would work with the 3rd party creators not against them.
1: I would include in the SRD 1st edition, 2nd Edition, and 4th Edition basic rules and classes.
2: Sign up on ORC for the new OGL. Be at the table, make that license the industry standard.
3: Make all DM's Guild and ALL Previous D&D content available for purchase and play on DnDB, yes this means 1st, 2nd, 3/3.5, D20, 4th, and 5th. Yes you would have to have multiple modes, but making DnDB better will earn more money and would be worth it.
4: WotC/Hasbro owns a lot of IP that can be used as D&D content, make a new 3rd Party License based on the OGL1.1 allowing for 3rd party creators to make 1st - 5th edition supplements using a long list of IP besides Forgotten Realms, and the 3 or 4 settings WotC is always developing. 3rd party creators are now writing your books, and you are selling them on your platform for a profit higher than if you wrote them yourselves.
5: Build the Uber awesome Videogame NFT filled VTT, only don't use NFT's or any of that cryptocurrency BS, your own servers and in system market should be fine.
Allow for all 3rd party content sold on DnDB to be able to be played on that VTT. Open up community accept development the way Foundry does it.
Turn D&D into the Steam of Table top gaming. Hells if you were over 9000 IQ I would include other types of table top games into the VTT, Hasbro has a bunch of board games, there are thousands of small indy developers selling one page rpgs, and War Gaming.
You understand if you include Wargaming in your VTT you will without trickery become the top VTT. Sure you would want to get GW to make a module. But think of the money...
You want to work with us, not against us, and you want to be one of us not some self appointed ruler.
A couple things here... 1. Revoking ability to use past SRDs. From what I understand in US law, and feel free to correct me, they really cant control the SRDs as game mechanics are not subject to US Copyright law. The SRD are essentially the mechanics of D&D so they really can't control their use. And anything that is not Unique creations in the D&D universe are fair game. Examples: Acid Arrow (open) / Melf's Acid Arrow (Copyright); Vecna (Copyright) / Lich God (open)
2. I think we need A LOT of clarification on the VTT policy. Where is the division?? Ok so VTT can not animate spell effects (which is an issue in and of itself, but I will touch on that later) Are lighting effects "Video Game" like? These effects can be engineered on a real table top with a talented set maker, but they do have a kind of video game feel.
3. The VTT restriction on Animated assets that are video game like. This is another provision that is nonsense and unenforceable, I wager. As I stated before in point 1, Mechanics are non copyrightable. So in theory a VTT could use the SRDs and make all the spell effects they like as long as it is a generic spell (ie Magic Missle, Fireball, Acid splash, etc and no Bigby's hand, Melf's Acid Arrow). So all the VTTs have to do is basically just claim to be "Compatible with D&D 5e" or whatever and not use any licensed/copyrighted images or spells and they can do anything they like free and clear of this nonsense OGL. They may have to just steer clear of making products using an official adventure, but to be fair, the players will ultimately make thier own maps and be able to play the adventures anyways.
I am not sure why Hasbro/WotC need to burn community favor and goodwill on a cash grab that essentially have little to no legal enforceability Just omit D&D licensed properties (particular named characters, gods, monsters. and art work) and just claim your product is D&D 5e or whatever compatible and poof they can't touch you.
Similar to what you said, but if anyone here has looked at the old TSR-era modules and settings, they are works of art and passion. Converting those into a compatible D&DB playable format sound CDs, maps, handouts and all, is a untapped goldmine, in my opinion. Since they are already written and extras produced import those assets to D&DB.
Those mods with that super high production quality are valued by the player base, many currently selling on ebay and such for almost $100 a pop, so the market is there.
A couple things here... 1. Revoking ability to use past SRDs. From what I understand in US law, and feel free to correct me, they really cant control the SRDs as game mechanics are not subject to US Copyright law. The SRD are essentially the mechanics of D&D so they really can't control their use. And anything that is not Unique creations in the D&D universe are fair game. Examples: Acid Arrow (open) / Melf's Acid Arrow (Copyright); Vecna (Copyright) / Lich God (open)
2. I think we need A LOT of clarification on the VTT policy. Where is the division?? Ok so VTT can not animate spell effects (which is an issue in and of itself, but I will touch on that later) Are lighting effects "Video Game" like? These effects can be engineered on a real table top with a talented set maker, but they do have a kind of video game feel.
3. The VTT restriction on Animated assets that are video game like. This is another provision that is nonsense and unenforceable, I wager. As I stated before in point 1, Mechanics are non copyrightable. So in theory a VTT could use the SRDs and make all the spell effects they like as long as it is a generic spell (ie Magic Missle, Fireball, Acid splash, etc and no Bigby's hand, Melf's Acid Arrow). So all the VTTs have to do is basically just claim to be "Compatible with D&D 5e" or whatever and not use any licensed/copyrighted images or spells and they can do anything they like free and clear of this nonsense OGL. They may have to just steer clear of making products using an official adventure, but to be fair, the players will ultimately make thier own maps and be able to play the adventures anyways.
I am not sure why Hasbro/WotC need to burn community favor and goodwill on a cash grab that essentially have little to no legal enforceability Just omit D&D licensed properties (particular named characters, gods, monsters. and art work) and just claim your product is D&D 5e or whatever compatible and poof they can't touch you.
There is no way (execpt for Legal Eagle) that the SRD is game mechanics. It has game mechanics (and even those you would to reformulate as the choice of words is creating a protected work), but it has stuff like the items, too (well now, not anymore in 1.2), that need the license. If they kill 1.0a (with SRD) a lot of projects die, and some creators will have to stop creating alltogether.
The SRD is in fact copyright neutral, that was part of the point of it. It was originally designed as a copyright neutral reference document that anyone could use without using licensed material. That's why 3rd parties can use it, and it is published free all over the internet without breaking piracy laws.
WotC's only licensable material is essentially the Artwork and anything with a Proper name to it.
Examples:
Bigby's Floating hand (copywritable) > Floating hand (free and clear)
So as long as you leave out the proper names or swap them for something else you are free and clear of WotC's license.
Essentially it boils down to this:
Game Mechanics are not copywritable
Words used to describe stuff are not copywritable or trademarkable.
~95% of the monster are taken from common mythology and are not copywritable and neither are their stat blocks as those are mechanics.
Nearly all the races are the same as above and free and clear
Any magic items without a proper name are free
The SRD's contents are free and clear as long as you do not reproduce it in exactly the same format as presented. They can copywrite how it is presented, just not the contents themselves.
At the end of the day all this nonsense with the OGL is largely a bluff by Hasbro/WotC to assert control over something they have little to no legal standing to do so. They ay even be silly enough to take it to court, but they would loose, not only in a law sense but also would alienate even more of their dwindling player base going forward,
At the end of the day all this nonsense with the OGL is largely a bluff by Hasbro/WotC to assert control over something they have little to no legal standing to do so. They ay even be silly enough to take it to court, but they would loose, not only in a law sense but also would alienate even more of their dwindling player base going forward,
Precisely. They were trying to get 3rd party creators and companies to sign the new 1.0 OGL which granted them royalties and legal rights well beyond what they are entitled to now, the bluff already happened. What we're seeing going forward is just the fallout of them having tried to pull one over on the third party community and get ahold of them, of course they're going to insist that it was 'always a discussion' but if it was just an up-in-the-air-draft then Kickstarter wouldn't have had a rock solid deal with Wizards and known their percentage was lower than the others - it's just that they didn't expect the LEAK to happen and for us to find out about it until it was all said and done. Once you sign a new OGL you are stuck with it, you can't say 'Oh this is a bad deal actually nevermind'. They were hoping to scare content creators into signing their rights away at the beginning of this, and everything that happens after is just the aftermath of that original plan of bluster and bravado.
It's not a bluff, they really are too stupid to realize they can't do it. Perhaps when Chris "suck a bag of" Cocks gets fired as CEO.
Also, I've yet to see an RPG use mathematics we didn't learn in high school or earlier. Algebra? (a + b) Variables? (Strength) Charts & Graphs (yep those too)? A lot of the companies out there want you to think their "rule collections" are more than rudimentary math. When did you have to use derivatives or limits or any other calculus in a TTRPG?
Expect the mathematics to get easier as they shoot for the largest target market, which contains a major percentage of people who struggle with high school math. Same motivation behind the social justice signaling they're doing.
Hasbro wants to take their ball and go home? Let them, we have our own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
While I agree, releasing the SRD's up to 5.1 to ORC or into some other creative commons would alleviate most of my problems with 1.2/2.0, it would not shift my view much, since, from my POV this action is 1) Unchanged from previous iterations of the OGL and very much in line with my expectations. That's my red line that, if WotC crosses it, for any reason, they never see a dime from me ever again. WotC always had the right to publish a NEW product with NEW licensing terms, or propose a shiny new license for badge-recognition that has harsher rules. They never had the right to "de-authorize" 1.0a, and the idea that they would even try gauls. It's scammy in the same league as stealing money from a charity you set up with your name on it.
Stuff to be wary of from OGL 1.2 Draft:
5. YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT: "You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you
may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available."
(a) "You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license either by including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work or by applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines."
(b) "You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license."
9. MISCELLANEOUS:
(a) Notices. "We may notify you by any email or physical address we can locate for you. Only if we cannot locate your email or physical address after a reasonable search, notice via a public channel is sufficient. You may provide notice to us of your email or physical address, or any other notice, by emailing oglnotices@wizards.com."
breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach."
It means, they can release a new license any time, de-athorize this one, and start the dance all over, and people will be less pissed because they already did it before and we already flipped our lids. Fool me once...
I am almost certain that that is EXACTLY their plan. Collectors editions with NFT limited edition artworks and tokens. Free money as far as WotC is concerned. Don't worry, I'm pretty sure the execs at Wizards know about as much about NFTs and blockchain technology as they do about how to apologize for things... that is to say, they point at someone and tell them "you do it."
Because 5.1 and 5.5 are too similar and it will create brand confusion. People will be able to make content that is forwards compatible and slap a 5e sticker on it. There would be zero incentive to use the new license, and, rather than offering a carrot (badges, access to the beyond marketplace, etc) they went with the stick instead. USE THIS ONE OR WE SUE YOU INTO THE GROUND!!!
To be fair, they are clearly already walking back this agreement too, hence the language calling the license "irrevocable meaning some other thing that is clearly meant to mean the opposite of something that is irrevocable"
It's funny that this keeps coming up.
We can use all the rules we want, in any way we want, without the OGL (any version) at all. Offering us a license on things which are already ours is nonsense. Don't waste our time. Quit trying to license it to us.
Honestly, at this point, Hasbro/WotC have nothing to offer except the use of actual Trademarked & Copyrighted content. Which they don't want to do.
So, in turn, I don't want to ever give them another penny, directly or indirectly. That, I assure you, will hold true.
"I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."
No. This needs to be gone. There is no world anywhere where someone publishes anything using a license that can be arbitrarily tossed in the shredder for any reason with 30 days notice, and you have no recourse. This is an ABSOLUTE poison pill. The license needs to be IRON CLAD or it's worthless. In fact, it's worse than worthless. It's a Trojan Horse hoping that you'll open the gates because posiedon is watching and he gets angry when you burn giant wooden horses. ... wait, ah... what? Where am I?
I would like to point out that decisions on a license is a legal document and decisions on that license are best left to legal experts in this particular field.
Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro asking the end-users in general to decide on the license details without legal council is suspect at best and outright nefarious at worst. With that given, the D&D end users should not agree to ANYTHING without legal council stating the true meaning of such an agreement actually means.
For instance, Section three points (a) and (b). While I'm not a lawyer, it appears to basically state. We will get to use your content (ala, no injunctive relief meaning it will go out no matter what) and we might pay you some money for breach of contract, but we will severally limit your recourse in the matter. (Yeah, hell no. Breaches play out in court the way the court allows)
Again, Section 6 point (f). IT says no hate speech, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engaging in conduct that is harmful, etc... then it says that Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro has the SOLE RIGHT to decide what conduct or content is hateful. What does this mean? It means if they don't like something, they can slap mean or harmful on it and strip you of your ability to product your hard work. Let me repeat that. THEY CAN REJECT THE LICENSE TO YOU FOR ANY REASON AT THEIR SOLE DISCRETION! (THIS IS A SUPER HARD NO!)
Section 7 as a whole. Rejected. If there is a breach, then it plays out in court and with court authorized options like injunctive relief preventing a 3PP product from being sold if it contains infringing copyrighted content. We do not need Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro dictating terms of 3PP content creators legal response.
Section 9, point (c): Remove this clause. If someone infringes on your rights and you decide not to peruse it. Then the court may decide you have waved your legal rights. You may not just change your mind later on and go after something several years later. This is how the courts work, this is how this agreement must work also.
Section 9, point (d): No! This could result in enormous damages for 3PP if something changes in the legal system that ends up causing part of the agreement to no longer be valid. This cannot be used as a cause for complete termination of this agreement. An event of this nature theoretically could be used to destroy a 3PP company.
Section 9, point (3): Rejected. It is the class action threat against Wizards of the Coast / Hasbro that helped force WotC / Hasbro to backdown in the first place. We must preserve the ability to protect ourselves from Corporate Greed. It is Corporate Greed that started this entire mess in the first place. We do not and will not ever trust Wizards of the Coast or Hasbro in the future. It is these legally binding and concrete legal agreements that protect us against them. (it is us vs them)
Section 9, point (g): Again, Rejected for the same reason. We will have the right to a jury trial.
There is always the option to rewrite the SRD in our *own* words and give it a REAL perpetual and irrevocable Open Source license.
Also, I would not allow the ability to unauthorize OGL 1.0a. This would strip existing rights and slap the above legally limiting of your rights to your existing work!
Info, Inflow, Overload. Knowledge Black Hole Imminent!
Too little, too late.
GO ORC! The third party IS the hobby.
And quit hiding behind this hateful content nonsense. Show me a serious publisher that's pumping out "hateful" content. DO IT!
Pretty cynical move on WotC's part. Pulling dirty tricks under the cover of protecting diversity. Shame on you WotC.
OGL 1.2 Draft Feedback
1. All rules are unburdened by copyright or trademark by law - we can all use them in any way wish wish.
2. See #1
3. It is inappropriate for you to attempt to control the venue for legal complaints on something you have no right to license in the first place.
4. No problems here, you own any copyrighted or trademarked product created by WotC.
5. Duh.
6. (f)You cant stop free speech, even that which we disagree with. As a private company, you have no place controlling the speech of others, ever, under any circumstances, period, outside of the sole scenario where you are distributing said speech. Then you can editorialize all you want. (Note: I agree 100% that your products should be constrained by the company values).
7. Threat of terminating a license for which there is no need.... whatevs
8. Yada
9. Yada
So there it is, my feedback.
I didn't bother reading your "FAQ" or "reasoning" because they are 100% irrelevant. We don't care WHY you do things, only WHAT you are trying to do with your "improved" licensing.
It's kind of late to fire upper management (who seriously should have never held the job, clearly), but that is sort of self solving at this point thanks to the massive revenue loss coming.
Edit: Saw in many other posts a comment regarding legal council. Perhaps someone less CG can put together a GoFundMe to pay for legal counsel on telling WotC to go F themselves.
"I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."
Never sign a contract (or accept a license like this) that incorporates other documents by reference. Especially if those documents are in the hands of the other party and can be changed at will.
The style guidelines are not included, the link takes you to Wizard's home page instead of to the style-guide, and that guide does not even appear to yet exist. 5a states that you need to either include either the full-text of the license, or the badge under the then-current guidelines.
Section 7a permits them to change the attribution requirements in 5a, so they could legally take out of the part about including the full-text of the license and change the style-guide to say whatever they want it to. It could be changed to effectivly re-insert the registration and royalty requirements as part of using the badge, for example. Or even just change the whole section and put in whatever requirements they want to as part of the attribution.
So at the very least, they need to break 5a into two sub-sections, and leave the 'include the full text' option as immutable, with 7a being revised to only permit them to change the (then forever optional) badging guidelines.
Proposed change:
5. YOU CONTROL YOUR CONTENT. You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you
may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available
(a) You must clearly indicate that your Licensed Work contains Our Licensed Content under this license
either by:
(i) including the full text of this license in your Licensed Work, or
(ii) applying the Creator Products badge in compliance with the then-current style guidelines.
7(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5(a)(i) and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.
Now there is enough wrong with the rest of it that even then I would not recommend anyone use it even with that change, but that at the very least needs to change in order to remove a loophole that I very much hope was not intended to ever be used.
my official response as put in the opening field.
Also posted on Twitter, Mastodon, Facebook, and Tumblr
A couple things here...
1. Revoking ability to use past SRDs. From what I understand in US law, and feel free to correct me, they really cant control the SRDs as game mechanics are not subject to US Copyright law. The SRD are essentially the mechanics of D&D so they really can't control their use. And anything that is not Unique creations in the D&D universe are fair game. Examples: Acid Arrow (open) / Melf's Acid Arrow (Copyright); Vecna (Copyright) / Lich God (open)
2. I think we need A LOT of clarification on the VTT policy. Where is the division?? Ok so VTT can not animate spell effects (which is an issue in and of itself, but I will touch on that later) Are lighting effects "Video Game" like? These effects can be engineered on a real table top with a talented set maker, but they do have a kind of video game feel.
3. The VTT restriction on Animated assets that are video game like. This is another provision that is nonsense and unenforceable, I wager. As I stated before in point 1, Mechanics are non copyrightable. So in theory a VTT could use the SRDs and make all the spell effects they like as long as it is a generic spell (ie Magic Missle, Fireball, Acid splash, etc and no Bigby's hand, Melf's Acid Arrow). So all the VTTs have to do is basically just claim to be "Compatible with D&D 5e" or whatever and not use any licensed/copyrighted images or spells and they can do anything they like free and clear of this nonsense OGL. They may have to just steer clear of making products using an official adventure, but to be fair, the players will ultimately make thier own maps and be able to play the adventures anyways.
I am not sure why Hasbro/WotC need to burn community favor and goodwill on a cash grab that essentially have little to no legal enforceability Just omit D&D licensed properties (particular named characters, gods, monsters. and art work) and just claim your product is D&D 5e or whatever compatible and poof they can't touch you.
Similar to what you said, but if anyone here has looked at the old TSR-era modules and settings, they are works of art and passion. Converting those into a compatible D&DB playable format sound CDs, maps, handouts and all, is a untapped goldmine, in my opinion. Since they are already written and extras produced import those assets to D&DB.
Those mods with that super high production quality are valued by the player base, many currently selling on ebay and such for almost $100 a pop, so the market is there.
There is no way (execpt for Legal Eagle) that the SRD is game mechanics. It has game mechanics (and even those you would to reformulate as the choice of words is creating a protected work), but it has stuff like the items, too (well now, not anymore in 1.2), that need the license. If they kill 1.0a (with SRD) a lot of projects die, and some creators will have to stop creating alltogether.
The SRD is in fact copyright neutral, that was part of the point of it. It was originally designed as a copyright neutral reference document that anyone could use without using licensed material. That's why 3rd parties can use it, and it is published free all over the internet without breaking piracy laws.
WotC's only licensable material is essentially the Artwork and anything with a Proper name to it.
Examples:
So as long as you leave out the proper names or swap them for something else you are free and clear of WotC's license.
Essentially it boils down to this:
At the end of the day all this nonsense with the OGL is largely a bluff by Hasbro/WotC to assert control over something they have little to no legal standing to do so. They ay even be silly enough to take it to court, but they would loose, not only in a law sense but also would alienate even more of their dwindling player base going forward,
Precisely. They were trying to get 3rd party creators and companies to sign the new 1.0 OGL which granted them royalties and legal rights well beyond what they are entitled to now, the bluff already happened. What we're seeing going forward is just the fallout of them having tried to pull one over on the third party community and get ahold of them, of course they're going to insist that it was 'always a discussion' but if it was just an up-in-the-air-draft then Kickstarter wouldn't have had a rock solid deal with Wizards and known their percentage was lower than the others - it's just that they didn't expect the LEAK to happen and for us to find out about it until it was all said and done. Once you sign a new OGL you are stuck with it, you can't say 'Oh this is a bad deal actually nevermind'. They were hoping to scare content creators into signing their rights away at the beginning of this, and everything that happens after is just the aftermath of that original plan of bluster and bravado.
It's not a bluff, they really are too stupid to realize they can't do it. Perhaps when Chris "suck a bag of" Cocks gets fired as CEO.
Also, I've yet to see an RPG use mathematics we didn't learn in high school or earlier. Algebra? (a + b) Variables? (Strength) Charts & Graphs (yep those too)? A lot of the companies out there want you to think their "rule collections" are more than rudimentary math. When did you have to use derivatives or limits or any other calculus in a TTRPG?
Expect the mathematics to get easier as they shoot for the largest target market, which contains a major percentage of people who struggle with high school math. Same motivation behind the social justice signaling they're doing.
Hasbro wants to take their ball and go home? Let them, we have our own.
"I don’t want to belong to any club that would accept me as one of its members."