I want to clarify one thing, when I say that my suggestion is not to remove OGL1.0a, I mean that 1.2 does not invalidate 1.0a.
Perhaps that is what has not been understood, and probably the reason why the post has been deleted.
I am not saying that they should not make another license if they want. But let 1.0a continue to be valid. And that the creators chose which one they prefer to join.
It's not that it isn't understood. It's that this is a 1.2 thread, not a 1.0a thread, so any discussion of 1.0a is irrelevant. While I get that would be very on-brand for you, it's not helpful in this instance. And as said before, there are plenty of other threads already promoting 1.0a, so reposting that here would only be redundant.
That said, if you think a specific part of any prior OGL is worth keeping but not presently in 1.2, you can just copy/paste that section as a constructive suggestion. We all want 1.2 to be the best license it can be, yes?
Paragraph 6(f) - Remove “and you covenant that you will not contest any such action via any suit or other legal action.”
I do not think this language is enforceable - I can’t speak for Washington’s law, but I know my own state heavily disfavours contractual terms that take away your right to defend yourself in the event of a material breach (such as alleged overreach by Wizards in determining something is offensive). Again, can’t speak for Washington, but I also know plenty of judges in my area who, seeing part of a term is unenforceable, might say all of Paragraph 6(f) is unenforceable - leading to the distinct possibility that Wizards could lose the right to enforce the anti-bigotry terms all together. Not a fan of legal terms that might backfire horrifically.
If I understand this document correctly, if this part of 6(f) is found unenforceable (EDIT) in court (/EDIT) the severability clause as currently written could render the ENTIRE 1.2 inoperative (or whatever the legal term is)?
That is one way to read 6(f) and 9(d), yes - I do not think it was intentionally put in there to be a back door out of the license, as some are claiming, but I do think they’re not great in tandem with one another. Hence my commentary updating both provisions, making the anti-bigotry language less likely to be found unenforceable and the sever ability language more favourable to the third party producers.
I probably would not have a problem with the severability language including something along the lines of “If a provision of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, this license may be updated to include a similar term designed to fulfil the same purpose” as a compromise position (spitballed language; it could probably be cleaned up some). Most of the terms are pretty standard and are very unlikely to be found unenforceable, so such additional language would really just exist to allow Wizards to write different/better anti-racism language if a judge finds what they do produce unenforceable in its entirety.
Really interesting stuff. One more question if you don't mind (I understand this is not legal advice): if my company produces multiple products under the 1.2 but ONE of them is found in violation of 6(f) and the license is 'terminated' is it terminated for stuff I already produced under 1.2 and/or any stuff I will produce under 1.2 or just for the product I produced that was found in violation of 6(f)?
I read it as applying the license to the specific licensed work - so you will lose the license for that content fairly clearly. It is possible Wizards could try to expand beyond that if they find the conduct so abhorrent it makes the remainder of your product questionable and your very name damaging to Wizards’ branding. But that is likely going to require something above and beyond simply making a book that fell on the fringe—it would have to rise to the level where Wizards thinks an author is such a problem, and so likely to repeat their hateful conduct, it would be worth the press of entering a metaphysical war with that individual or company.
We also need to understand that Wizards can be sued for content that they have no control over, so they need to be able to protect themselves too.
One can be sued for any reason. But Wizards cannot be successfully sued for content that they have no control over, no more than Toyota can be sued for a Corolla being used as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery, a hit and run, etc.
They merely need to put in liability limitation language in the license which would clarify that the use of the license provides no liability coverage and that any content produced under it is the sole responsibility of the creator and WotC does not endorse any content created by any 3PP.
There is simply no definition of hateful, harmful, or even discriminatory which will sate the public. The old adage, if you try making everyone happy, you will make everyone unhappy is still true to this day.
OGL 1.0a cannot be deauthorized by WotC, their only legal recourse is to create a new OGL/CCL and system which is superior enough to leave customers and 3PP's no realisitic choice but to convert to the new system/documents.
It is in WotC best interests to be Kleenex and not BETAMAX...
Paragraph 6(f) - Remove “and you covenant that you will not contest any such action via any suit or other legal action.”
I do not think this language is enforceable - I can’t speak for Washington’s law, but I know my own state heavily disfavours contractual terms that take away your right to defend yourself in the event of a material breach (such as alleged overreach by Wizards in determining something is offensive). Again, can’t speak for Washington, but I also know plenty of judges in my area who, seeing part of a term is unenforceable, might say all of Paragraph 6(f) is unenforceable - leading to the distinct possibility that Wizards could lose the right to enforce the anti-bigotry terms all together. Not a fan of legal terms that might backfire horrifically.
If I understand this document correctly, if this part of 6(f) is found unenforceable (EDIT) in court (/EDIT) the severability clause as currently written could render the ENTIRE 1.2 inoperative (or whatever the legal term is)?
That is one way to read 6(f) and 9(d), yes - I do not think it was intentionally put in there to be a back door out of the license, as some are claiming, but I do think they’re not great in tandem with one another. Hence my commentary updating both provisions, making the anti-bigotry language less likely to be found unenforceable and the sever ability language more favourable to the third party producers.
I probably would not have a problem with the severability language including something along the lines of “If a provision of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, this license may be updated to include a similar term designed to fulfil the same purpose” as a compromise position (spitballed language; it could probably be cleaned up some). Most of the terms are pretty standard and are very unlikely to be found unenforceable, so such additional language would really just exist to allow Wizards to write different/better anti-racism language if a judge finds what they do produce unenforceable in its entirety.
Really interesting stuff. One more question if you don't mind (I understand this is not legal advice): if my company produces multiple products under the 1.2 but ONE of them is found in violation of 6(f) and the license is 'terminated' is it terminated for stuff I already produced under 1.2 and/or any stuff I will produce under 1.2 or just for the product I produced that was found in violation of 6(f)?
I read it as applying the license to the specific licensed work - so you will lose the license for that content fairly clearly. It is possible Wizards could try to expand beyond that if they find the conduct so abhorrent it makes the remainder of your product questionable and your very name damaging to Wizards’ branding. But that is likely going to require something above and beyond simply making a book that fell on the fringe—it would have to rise to the level where Wizards thinks an author is such a problem, and so likely to repeat their hateful conduct, it would be worth the press of entering a metaphysical war with that individual or company.
That's how I interperted it. So even if my objectionable adventure is the only one with problematic content Wizards could go back and try to revoke the license for other work. But no matter WHAT Hasbro decided it would be 100% their perogative and with no recourse from the licensee as is currently written (and assuming that last part of 6(f) can be even enforced).
Also an interesting thing you mentioned is 'conduct.' If I act like an a-hole online or in public but my content is totally 100% benign could Wizards still revoke the license based on my conduct? The reading of 6(f) says "content in Your Licensed Works" not the conduct of the author.
I think the provision against class action suits should be removed. The only way most 3PPs could ever afford to go after WotC for damages is my means of a class action.
Paragraph 6(f) - Remove “and you covenant that you will not contest any such action via any suit or other legal action.”
I do not think this language is enforceable - I can’t speak for Washington’s law, but I know my own state heavily disfavours contractual terms that take away your right to defend yourself in the event of a material breach (such as alleged overreach by Wizards in determining something is offensive). Again, can’t speak for Washington, but I also know plenty of judges in my area who, seeing part of a term is unenforceable, might say all of Paragraph 6(f) is unenforceable - leading to the distinct possibility that Wizards could lose the right to enforce the anti-bigotry terms all together. Not a fan of legal terms that might backfire horrifically.
If I understand this document correctly, if this part of 6(f) is found unenforceable (EDIT) in court (/EDIT) the severability clause as currently written could render the ENTIRE 1.2 inoperative (or whatever the legal term is)?
That is one way to read 6(f) and 9(d), yes - I do not think it was intentionally put in there to be a back door out of the license, as some are claiming, but I do think they’re not great in tandem with one another. Hence my commentary updating both provisions, making the anti-bigotry language less likely to be found unenforceable and the sever ability language more favourable to the third party producers.
I probably would not have a problem with the severability language including something along the lines of “If a provision of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, this license may be updated to include a similar term designed to fulfil the same purpose” as a compromise position (spitballed language; it could probably be cleaned up some). Most of the terms are pretty standard and are very unlikely to be found unenforceable, so such additional language would really just exist to allow Wizards to write different/better anti-racism language if a judge finds what they do produce unenforceable in its entirety.
Really interesting stuff. One more question if you don't mind (I understand this is not legal advice): if my company produces multiple products under the 1.2 but ONE of them is found in violation of 6(f) and the license is 'terminated' is it terminated for stuff I already produced under 1.2 and/or any stuff I will produce under 1.2 or just for the product I produced that was found in violation of 6(f)?
I read it as applying the license to the specific licensed work - so you will lose the license for that content fairly clearly. It is possible Wizards could try to expand beyond that if they find the conduct so abhorrent it makes the remainder of your product questionable and your very name damaging to Wizards’ branding. But that is likely going to require something above and beyond simply making a book that fell on the fringe—it would have to rise to the level where Wizards thinks an author is such a problem, and so likely to repeat their hateful conduct, it would be worth the press of entering a metaphysical war with that individual or company.
That's how I interperted it. So even if my objectionable adventure is the only one with problematic content Wizards could go back and try to revoke the license for other work. But no matter WHAT Hasbro decided it would be 100% their perogative and with no recourse from the licensee as is currently written (and assuming that last part of 6(f) can be even enforced).
Also an interesting thing you mentioned is 'conduct.' If I act like an a-hole online or in public but my content is totally 100% benign could Wizards still revoke the license based on my conduct? The reading of 6(f) says "content in Your Licensed Works" not the conduct of the author.
There is an important “and” in there - the content in the licensed works AND the conduct are two separate things being addressed.
Wizards is concerned about a Terese Nielsen situation - she was an artist for Magic: the Gathering (one of their best and most popular), who went off on a bunch of rants about Jewish people, African Americans, her transphobic views, etc. and actively used her art—which was popular in a large part because Wizards made her famous—to actively fundraise for folks who shared in her problematic views. It was bad for Wizards - there were public protests against her at Magic tournaments by high level players, articles written about it, etc. They were not directly involved with her bigotry, but they promoted her and indirectly empowered her. Wizards doesn’t want folks to say “oh, hey, that racist is making money because they get empowered by Wizards’ license.” Not something Wizards wants to be involved with given how that has historically looked bad for them.
Paragraph 6(f) - Remove “and you covenant that you will not contest any such action via any suit or other legal action.”
I do not think this language is enforceable - I can’t speak for Washington’s law, but I know my own state heavily disfavours contractual terms that take away your right to defend yourself in the event of a material breach (such as alleged overreach by Wizards in determining something is offensive). Again, can’t speak for Washington, but I also know plenty of judges in my area who, seeing part of a term is unenforceable, might say all of Paragraph 6(f) is unenforceable - leading to the distinct possibility that Wizards could lose the right to enforce the anti-bigotry terms all together. Not a fan of legal terms that might backfire horrifically.
If I understand this document correctly, if this part of 6(f) is found unenforceable (EDIT) in court (/EDIT) the severability clause as currently written could render the ENTIRE 1.2 inoperative (or whatever the legal term is)?
That is one way to read 6(f) and 9(d), yes - I do not think it was intentionally put in there to be a back door out of the license, as some are claiming, but I do think they’re not great in tandem with one another. Hence my commentary updating both provisions, making the anti-bigotry language less likely to be found unenforceable and the sever ability language more favourable to the third party producers.
I probably would not have a problem with the severability language including something along the lines of “If a provision of this agreement is found to be unenforceable, this license may be updated to include a similar term designed to fulfil the same purpose” as a compromise position (spitballed language; it could probably be cleaned up some). Most of the terms are pretty standard and are very unlikely to be found unenforceable, so such additional language would really just exist to allow Wizards to write different/better anti-racism language if a judge finds what they do produce unenforceable in its entirety.
Really interesting stuff. One more question if you don't mind (I understand this is not legal advice): if my company produces multiple products under the 1.2 but ONE of them is found in violation of 6(f) and the license is 'terminated' is it terminated for stuff I already produced under 1.2 and/or any stuff I will produce under 1.2 or just for the product I produced that was found in violation of 6(f)?
I read it as applying the license to the specific licensed work - so you will lose the license for that content fairly clearly. It is possible Wizards could try to expand beyond that if they find the conduct so abhorrent it makes the remainder of your product questionable and your very name damaging to Wizards’ branding. But that is likely going to require something above and beyond simply making a book that fell on the fringe—it would have to rise to the level where Wizards thinks an author is such a problem, and so likely to repeat their hateful conduct, it would be worth the press of entering a metaphysical war with that individual or company.
That's how I interperted it. So even if my objectionable adventure is the only one with problematic content Wizards could go back and try to revoke the license for other work. But no matter WHAT Hasbro decided it would be 100% their perogative and with no recourse from the licensee as is currently written (and assuming that last part of 6(f) can be even enforced).
Also an interesting thing you mentioned is 'conduct.' If I act like an a-hole online or in public but my content is totally 100% benign could Wizards still revoke the license based on my conduct? The reading of 6(f) says "content in Your Licensed Works" not the conduct of the author.
Regarding conduct, given how many creatives, public and semi-public, have been outed as abusers, creeps, etc. recently, I absolutely think this is to allow them to shut a creators ability to work with them down if said creator also turned out to be an abuser, creep, etc...
That said, I would like specificity in the process, a review process, and how this might be applied as you said to multiple works addressed in the final version of this, and will be my feedback on any survey they issue.
There is an important “and” in there - the content in the licensed works AND the conduct are two separate things being addressed.
Wizards is concerned about a Terese Nielsen situation - she was an artist for Magic: the Gathering (one of their best and most popular), who went off on a bunch of rants about Jewish people, African Americans, her transphobic views, etc. and actively used her art—which was popular in a large part because Wizards made her famous—to actively fundraise for folks who shared in her problematic views. It was bad for Wizards - there were public protests against her at Magic tournaments by high level players, articles written about it, etc. They were not directly involved with her bigotry, but they promoted her and indirectly empowered her. Wizards doesn’t want folks to say “oh, hey, that racist is making money because they get empowered by Wizards’ license.” Not something Wizards wants to be involved with given how that has historically looked bad for them.
This is on me I didn't read the whole clause (I was too busy ironically examining an algorithm in excruiating detail for work which is similar to analyzing contract in some ways LOL!). Yes having been an active Magic player (at least until Hasbro's awful stewardship of the game this past year natch) I remember the Nielsen situation very vividly. Not to mention the stuff surrounding the 'culutrally offensive' cards they banned which included art from an artist doing some quite questionable things since he made that art for them in 1994.
It's actually an interesting case study, back in the early days of Magic the art direction was minimal and they let a lot of weird and questionable art in. Not just questionable in terms of taste or bigory but things like a wombat being shown as a bat, creatures who couldn't fly with wings and vice versa, and whatever this is to represent "Stasis." Now this was LONG before Hasbro even though about owning Wizards but they were kind of forced to deal with it many decades later for reasons similar to what they claim they want to achieve in 6(f). Nowadays the art that goes into MTG is EXTREMELY controlled almost to the point where it looks a bit too 'samey' but that's another topic.
Having said all that, the fact that this also includes conduct is a bit more concerning to me but it's good to understand the topic more to help shape an opinion on it. Thank you.
The biggest problem with all of this, is getting the community majority to have the same kinda responses of what we want. which i think is what they are banking on is for us to be divided in certain parts so they can come out and show the stats and be like this isn't want the majority of people wanted.
That said
1: even though it doesn't have royalty language. It needs to be expressly royalty free.
2: Creators need to be able to challenge WotC as to what constitutes “hateful” so that this power cant be abused by them.
3: The VTT language needs a big overhaul, animations or sound effects is hardly "video game", this needs to be allowed (people can do this at their tables using a flat screen ive seen it done)
4: license itself is revocable and can still be replaced, this also needs to change so that it cant be. right now its worded so that the product you make using it cant be stripped of the license but the license itself can be stripped.
5: something to allow people to make stuff for earlier editions, Bonus points if you include 4E (but prob wont happen)
Okay, here are some thoughts and questions that have come up for me (as a lay person)
3b) What is the limit for "substantial similarity" of a product WotC produces being akin to something created by someone under this license? Would printing a carbon copy, word-for-word duplicate of someone's work count as "substantial similarity" or would something that exact be referred to under a different term? If an exact duplicate would still constitute "substantial similarity", then I think the wording should be changed to prohibit exact plagiarism (whatever form that might take).
5f) I would like for WotC to expand more on what constitutes "hateful content" rather than stating 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. Frankly, I dont care if they double or triple the documents length just to add a section on hateful content and give defined bounds and examples of what is prohibited, so long as it is not left open ended.
Other) The various limitations surrounding lawsuits against WotC (only accept monetary damages, no class action, no jury) seems dubious and restrictive, but I honestly dont know how common this sort of thing is.
Well, my constructive suggestion is that they don't deprecate OGL 1.0a. It's the only thing that can stop the bleeding IMO.
Thats not constructive. One thing that has not changed for Wizards in this whole process is that they intend to stop using 1.0. Giving feedback for 1.2 saying "dont undo 1.0" is like if someone on this forum was looking for constructive feedback on how to make a Fighter that's sneaky and someone said "the only way to do that is dont make a Fighter, make a Rogue." Its not helping with constructing on what has been put forward, just looking to reverse the choice altogether.
Let me be clear, theres no problem with you wanting OGL 1.0a to stay in effect and there is a place and voice for that opinion. There are already metric tons of threads with that idea being supported and repeated to hopefully get WotC attention. This thread, however, is aiming to try and help build up the proposed 1.2 into something worthwhile, not revert back to 1.0a
It is constructive as if they continue down their attempt to "de-auth" 1.0 it will set off legal disputes--effectively tarnishing the brand further and leading to potential other liabilities and risks.
As far as conduct, who is covered by that clause when the other party is a corporation? If a janitor that works for JaekenGames gets a speeding ticket, will that technically trigger the "no illegal conduct" clause? How about if the CEO does it? A owner? What if they assault someone rather than commit a traffic violation? Because while having objectionable content might only nix the publishing of that book, the conduct clause could bring down the whole library.
"Kobold Press was forced to close its doors today due to WotC terminating the 1.2 OGL after a UberEats driver jaywalked while delivering lunch to thier office."
As far as conduct, who is covered by that clause when the other party is a corporation? If a janitor that works for JaekenGames gets a speeding ticket, will that technically trigger the "no illegal conduct" clause? How about if the CEO does it? A owner? What if they assault someone rather than commit a traffic violation? Because while having objectionable content might only nix the publishing of that book, the conduct clause could bring down the whole library.
"Kobold Press was forced to close its doors today due to WotC terminating the 1.2 OGL after a UberEats driver jaywalked while delivering lunch to thier office."
This also starts to become even more problematic when you think about the laws different states and country's have to yours. in some country's its illegal to do things that it is legal to do in the states and vice versa, but then some things that are legal in New York are Illegal in Texas.
Well, my constructive suggestion is that they don't deprecate OGL 1.0a. It's the only thing that can stop the bleeding IMO.
Thats not constructive. One thing that has not changed for Wizards in this whole process is that they intend to stop using 1.0. Giving feedback for 1.2 saying "dont undo 1.0" is like if someone on this forum was looking for constructive feedback on how to make a Fighter that's sneaky and someone said "the only way to do that is dont make a Fighter, make a Rogue." Its not helping with constructing on what has been put forward, just looking to reverse the choice altogether.
Let me be clear, theres no problem with you wanting OGL 1.0a to stay in effect and there is a place and voice for that opinion. There are already metric tons of threads with that idea being supported and repeated to hopefully get WotC attention. This thread, however, is aiming to try and help build up the proposed 1.2 into something worthwhile, not revert back to 1.0a
It is constructive as if they continue down their attempt to "de-auth" 1.0 it will set off legal disputes--effectively tarnishing the brand further and leading to potential other liabilities and risks.
It's not constructive as far as making 1.2 the best it can be, which is the topic of this thread. There are plenty of "Keep 1.0a active" threads already going elsewhere on DDB.
5f) I would like for WotC to expand more on what constitutes "hateful content" rather than stating 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. Frankly, I dont care if they double or triple the documents length just to add a section on hateful content and give defined bounds and examples of what is prohibited, so long as it is not left open ended.
This is kind of my thing. I understand the very nature of this makes it impossible to list every scenario and having a longer document makes people just get frustrated or confused or look for loopholes. However, a lot of people here have talked about bigoted or racist content but how about LGBTQ content? As has been noticed a lot of fringe 3PPs were making content about LGBTQ characters and continue to this day. Heck, the ENNIES gave this past year's award to Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Now I absolutely 100% understand that it was NOT published under the OGL but with a clause like 6(f) around there is a significant portion of the population (although how much of it makes up the TTRPG community is another question) that would def want Hasbro to take down a product called "Thirsty Sword Lesbians". With 6(f) they absolutely could and look justified doing it to some people.
Now whether Hasbro would or not the fact is that I would be surprised if a 3PP who would want to publish that kind of content wouldn't consider being nuked by section 6(f) a distinct possibility and just not use OGL. Many others would too. Again, maybe you think I'm wrong I could be. But I think there's a better chance that I'm right and if I am, we're going to see a lot of interesting content that has NOTHING to do with bigtory just never get published under the OGL. I think the term is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and I can't say that's a good thing. No way no how. So, at the minimum, we need clearer guidelilnes AND an established appeals/arbirtation process.
Having thought about... the "We are the only deciders on what is hateful" should likely be removed and replaced with "We will use a 3rd party arbitration board to review potentially hateful content" in section 6.
It's not constructive as far as making 1.2 the best it can be, which is the topic of this thread. There are plenty of "Keep 1.0a active" threads already going elsewhere on DDB.
False. 1.2 cannot thrive if nobody will use it. Nobody will use it if wizards comes at this from an attitude that treats the community at large like freelance interns. The OGL should be an offer of partnership, not a noose by which one might hang themself.
Maintaining 1.0a means that wizards needs to balance the cost of compliance with equal benefit and security that is at LEAST as strong as what they offered previously, or else people will not use it. That is a very healthy start to making 1.2 better than it is. At this point, I would even suggest that divorcing themselves entirely from 1.2 would be doing them a great service. You want the community's trust and acceptance? There you go.
SO lets say the curmdugeons on 1.0a get their way. 1.0a stays. In about 12 years, 1.0a can be cancelled at will. 35 years after grant, any licensing can be revoked, by US law.
So 12 years from now, 1.0a goes poof, and WotC can start demanding royalties from all 3pp people currently producing under 1.0a.
Might it be better to rework the License, to meet WotC's needs and make it better for Publishers, then to stick with something that WotC will just end in about 12 years.
It's not constructive as far as making 1.2 the best it can be, which is the topic of this thread. There are plenty of "Keep 1.0a active" threads already going elsewhere on DDB.
False. 1.2 cannot thrive if nobody will use it. Nobody will use it if wizards comes at this from an attitude that treats the community at large like freelance interns. The OGL should be an offer of partnership, not a noose by which one might hang themself.
Maintaining 1.0a means that wizards needs to balance the cost of compliance with equal benefit and security that is at LEAST as strong as what they offered previously, or else people will not use it. That is a very healthy start to making 1.2 better than it is. At this point, I would even suggest that divorcing themselves entirely from 1.2 would be doing them a great service. You want the community's trust and acceptance? There you go.
This thread is about discussing and trying to improve upon OGL 1.2, which begins on page 3 of the provided 'playtest' document. The deauthorization of 1.0a is covered under the Draft SRD Introduction section on page 2. This thread is about discussing and refining the content of pages 3-5, not the merits of the SRD and 1.0a nor the Virtual Tabletop that are included in the same document.
It's not that it isn't understood. It's that this is a 1.2 thread, not a 1.0a thread, so any discussion of 1.0a is irrelevant. While I get that would be very on-brand for you, it's not helpful in this instance. And as said before, there are plenty of other threads already promoting 1.0a, so reposting that here would only be redundant.
That said, if you think a specific part of any prior OGL is worth keeping but not presently in 1.2, you can just copy/paste that section as a constructive suggestion. We all want 1.2 to be the best license it can be, yes?
I read it as applying the license to the specific licensed work - so you will lose the license for that content fairly clearly. It is possible Wizards could try to expand beyond that if they find the conduct so abhorrent it makes the remainder of your product questionable and your very name damaging to Wizards’ branding. But that is likely going to require something above and beyond simply making a book that fell on the fringe—it would have to rise to the level where Wizards thinks an author is such a problem, and so likely to repeat their hateful conduct, it would be worth the press of entering a metaphysical war with that individual or company.
One can be sued for any reason. But Wizards cannot be successfully sued for content that they have no control over, no more than Toyota can be sued for a Corolla being used as a getaway vehicle in a bank robbery, a hit and run, etc.
They merely need to put in liability limitation language in the license which would clarify that the use of the license provides no liability coverage and that any content produced under it is the sole responsibility of the creator and WotC does not endorse any content created by any 3PP.
There is simply no definition of hateful, harmful, or even discriminatory which will sate the public. The old adage, if you try making everyone happy, you will make everyone unhappy is still true to this day.
OGL 1.0a cannot be deauthorized by WotC, their only legal recourse is to create a new OGL/CCL and system which is superior enough to leave customers and 3PP's no realisitic choice but to convert to the new system/documents.
It is in WotC best interests to be Kleenex and not BETAMAX...
That's how I interperted it. So even if my objectionable adventure is the only one with problematic content Wizards could go back and try to revoke the license for other work. But no matter WHAT Hasbro decided it would be 100% their perogative and with no recourse from the licensee as is currently written (and assuming that last part of 6(f) can be even enforced).
Also an interesting thing you mentioned is 'conduct.' If I act like an a-hole online or in public but my content is totally 100% benign could Wizards still revoke the license based on my conduct? The reading of 6(f) says "content in Your Licensed Works" not the conduct of the author.
I think the provision against class action suits should be removed. The only way most 3PPs could ever afford to go after WotC for damages is my means of a class action.
There is an important “and” in there - the content in the licensed works AND the conduct are two separate things being addressed.
Wizards is concerned about a Terese Nielsen situation - she was an artist for Magic: the Gathering (one of their best and most popular), who went off on a bunch of rants about Jewish people, African Americans, her transphobic views, etc. and actively used her art—which was popular in a large part because Wizards made her famous—to actively fundraise for folks who shared in her problematic views. It was bad for Wizards - there were public protests against her at Magic tournaments by high level players, articles written about it, etc. They were not directly involved with her bigotry, but they promoted her and indirectly empowered her. Wizards doesn’t want folks to say “oh, hey, that racist is making money because they get empowered by Wizards’ license.” Not something Wizards wants to be involved with given how that has historically looked bad for them.
Regarding conduct, given how many creatives, public and semi-public, have been outed as abusers, creeps, etc. recently, I absolutely think this is to allow them to shut a creators ability to work with them down if said creator also turned out to be an abuser, creep, etc...
That said, I would like specificity in the process, a review process, and how this might be applied as you said to multiple works addressed in the final version of this, and will be my feedback on any survey they issue.
This is on me I didn't read the whole clause (I was too busy ironically examining an algorithm in excruiating detail for work which is similar to analyzing contract in some ways LOL!). Yes having been an active Magic player (at least until Hasbro's awful stewardship of the game this past year natch) I remember the Nielsen situation very vividly. Not to mention the stuff surrounding the 'culutrally offensive' cards they banned which included art from an artist doing some quite questionable things since he made that art for them in 1994.
It's actually an interesting case study, back in the early days of Magic the art direction was minimal and they let a lot of weird and questionable art in. Not just questionable in terms of taste or bigory but things like a wombat being shown as a bat, creatures who couldn't fly with wings and vice versa, and whatever this is to represent "Stasis." Now this was LONG before Hasbro even though about owning Wizards but they were kind of forced to deal with it many decades later for reasons similar to what they claim they want to achieve in 6(f). Nowadays the art that goes into MTG is EXTREMELY controlled almost to the point where it looks a bit too 'samey' but that's another topic.
Having said all that, the fact that this also includes conduct is a bit more concerning to me but it's good to understand the topic more to help shape an opinion on it. Thank you.
The biggest problem with all of this, is getting the community majority to have the same kinda responses of what we want. which i think is what they are banking on is for us to be divided in certain parts so they can come out and show the stats and be like this isn't want the majority of people wanted.
That said
1: even though it doesn't have royalty language. It needs to be expressly royalty free.
2: Creators need to be able to challenge WotC as to what constitutes “hateful” so that this power cant be abused by them.
3: The VTT language needs a big overhaul, animations or sound effects is hardly "video game", this needs to be allowed (people can do this at their tables using a flat screen ive seen it done)
4: license itself is revocable and can still be replaced, this also needs to change so that it cant be. right now its worded so that the product you make using it cant be stripped of the license but the license itself can be stripped.
5: something to allow people to make stuff for earlier editions, Bonus points if you include 4E (but prob wont happen)
Okay, here are some thoughts and questions that have come up for me (as a lay person)
3b) What is the limit for "substantial similarity" of a product WotC produces being akin to something created by someone under this license? Would printing a carbon copy, word-for-word duplicate of someone's work count as "substantial similarity" or would something that exact be referred to under a different term? If an exact duplicate would still constitute "substantial similarity", then I think the wording should be changed to prohibit exact plagiarism (whatever form that might take).
5f) I would like for WotC to expand more on what constitutes "hateful content" rather than stating 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. Frankly, I dont care if they double or triple the documents length just to add a section on hateful content and give defined bounds and examples of what is prohibited, so long as it is not left open ended.
Other) The various limitations surrounding lawsuits against WotC (only accept monetary damages, no class action, no jury) seems dubious and restrictive, but I honestly dont know how common this sort of thing is.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!
It is constructive as if they continue down their attempt to "de-auth" 1.0 it will set off legal disputes--effectively tarnishing the brand further and leading to potential other liabilities and risks.
As far as conduct, who is covered by that clause when the other party is a corporation? If a janitor that works for JaekenGames gets a speeding ticket, will that technically trigger the "no illegal conduct" clause? How about if the CEO does it? A owner? What if they assault someone rather than commit a traffic violation? Because while having objectionable content might only nix the publishing of that book, the conduct clause could bring down the whole library.
"Kobold Press was forced to close its doors today due to WotC terminating the 1.2 OGL after a UberEats driver jaywalked while delivering lunch to thier office."
This also starts to become even more problematic when you think about the laws different states and country's have to yours. in some country's its illegal to do things that it is legal to do in the states and vice versa, but then some things that are legal in New York are Illegal in Texas.
It's not constructive as far as making 1.2 the best it can be, which is the topic of this thread. There are plenty of "Keep 1.0a active" threads already going elsewhere on DDB.
This is kind of my thing. I understand the very nature of this makes it impossible to list every scenario and having a longer document makes people just get frustrated or confused or look for loopholes. However, a lot of people here have talked about bigoted or racist content but how about LGBTQ content? As has been noticed a lot of fringe 3PPs were making content about LGBTQ characters and continue to this day. Heck, the ENNIES gave this past year's award to Thirsty Sword Lesbians. Now I absolutely 100% understand that it was NOT published under the OGL but with a clause like 6(f) around there is a significant portion of the population (although how much of it makes up the TTRPG community is another question) that would def want Hasbro to take down a product called "Thirsty Sword Lesbians". With 6(f) they absolutely could and look justified doing it to some people.
Now whether Hasbro would or not the fact is that I would be surprised if a 3PP who would want to publish that kind of content wouldn't consider being nuked by section 6(f) a distinct possibility and just not use OGL. Many others would too. Again, maybe you think I'm wrong I could be. But I think there's a better chance that I'm right and if I am, we're going to see a lot of interesting content that has NOTHING to do with bigtory just never get published under the OGL. I think the term is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater' and I can't say that's a good thing. No way no how. So, at the minimum, we need clearer guidelilnes AND an established appeals/arbirtation process.
Remove any language about de-authorizing or revoking any previous OGL documents and their accompanying SRD and honor the intent of the original OGL.
That's the only language I really care about. We can talk about the other things once they've committed to that.
Having thought about... the "We are the only deciders on what is hateful" should likely be removed and replaced with "We will use a 3rd party arbitration board to review potentially hateful content" in section 6.
False. 1.2 cannot thrive if nobody will use it. Nobody will use it if wizards comes at this from an attitude that treats the community at large like freelance interns. The OGL should be an offer of partnership, not a noose by which one might hang themself.
Maintaining 1.0a means that wizards needs to balance the cost of compliance with equal benefit and security that is at LEAST as strong as what they offered previously, or else people will not use it. That is a very healthy start to making 1.2 better than it is. At this point, I would even suggest that divorcing themselves entirely from 1.2 would be doing them a great service. You want the community's trust and acceptance? There you go.
SO lets say the curmdugeons on 1.0a get their way. 1.0a stays. In about 12 years, 1.0a can be cancelled at will. 35 years after grant, any licensing can be revoked, by US law.
So 12 years from now, 1.0a goes poof, and WotC can start demanding royalties from all 3pp people currently producing under 1.0a.
Might it be better to rework the License, to meet WotC's needs and make it better for Publishers, then to stick with something that WotC will just end in about 12 years.
This thread is about discussing and trying to improve upon OGL 1.2, which begins on page 3 of the provided 'playtest' document. The deauthorization of 1.0a is covered under the Draft SRD Introduction section on page 2. This thread is about discussing and refining the content of pages 3-5, not the merits of the SRD and 1.0a nor the Virtual Tabletop that are included in the same document.
There are separate threads where people are taking the time to talk about the strength and value of 1.0a, and there are separate threads to talk about the discussed VTT policy.
Three-time Judge of the Competition of the Finest Brews! Come join us in making fun, unique homebrew and voting for your favorite entries!