I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Edit: Ooops, forgot to say "Morality Police Bad, M'kay?"
However, the fact remains that unlike "Tasha" and "Fizban", things such as "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not unique proper nouns. As such, they are not subject to copyright, and are not IP.
Do you actually think that only proper nouns can be IP?
Actually, my knowledge of all the rules and legalities of IP was incomplete and a but hazy, so I did some research last night. What I found was quite illuminating.
There are 4 types of Intellectual Property - patents, trade secrets, trademarks, and copyright. Patents protect inventions; trade secrets protect secret devices and processes used in the manufacture of goods; trademarks (or servicemarks) protect a word, phrase, image, or logo that directly identifies the source of a particular product (or service) within the industry in which they do business; finally, copyright protects unique expression (as one website put it, "original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture").
When talking about the matter at hand, it appears only trademark and copyright are possibly relevant. The spells, monsters, classes, or races (ancestries) that Wizards of the Coast might wish to claim as their IP are not inventions, nor are they secrets used in manufacturing.
Copyright protects a particular unique expression of something, but it does not protect facts, ideas, concepts, themes, plots, names(!), single words or short word combinations, or the rules/mechanics of a game. Those things considered public domain, and when they overlap with expression, public interest always trumps copyright. To clarify, copyright protection applies to text only if it's of significant size (about a paragraph or more). It prevents that text from being copied, even if it is altered using synonyms and rearranging the order of words in sentences. Thus, to avoid infringement, a copied work must not be recognisable as derivative from the original.
As far as DnD goes, much (but not all) of what constitutes spells, monsters, classes or races (ancestries) are themselves game mechanics, and are thus not copyright protected. Now any pure flavour or lore text in the published descriptions of these things does fall under copyright - if it is in fact both original and it meets the requirement of being of significant size (i.e. about a paragraph) - but otherwise they are public domain. Wizards or one such as yourself might argue that the SRD (or even the OGL itself, but let's not go there now), for example, is still copyright protected as a unique expression of the rules set, and thus to legally use them without permission, another party would have to change them to such a degree that they are not recognisable as the same document.
However, here is Wizards' legal catch 22: the fact that these are also rules of the game means that copyright is not applicable regardless. This is because once any significant descriptive flavour (lore) is removed, the rules of the game are precise and interdependent, and to force a significant re-expression different enough to satisfy copyright requirements means that the mechanics themselves would be necessarily and unavoidably altered. As public domain supersedes copyright when there is a conflict between them, then they aren't covered by copyright. Case closed.
Unique fictional characters, places, and stories are a different matter entirely, of course. Someone can't publish works containing the fictional character of Tasha, or the Forgotten Realms setting, for example. However, the names themselves are not copyright. This is where trademark comes in. Forgotten Realms is a trademark of WotC because it is a product, which means you cannot publish a novel or game that uses a the fictional fantasy setting called Forgotten Realms without permission from Wizards. (On the other hand, GM could make a new car and call it Forgotten Realms without permission, because Wizards in not in the car-making business.) The name Tasha itself is not a trademark, however, because it is not a brand, product, or service. Tasha's Cauldron of Everything is a absolutely trademarked product, but not Tasha herself. Thus, people are even free to use the name Tasha as long as they do not in a way that clearly identifies her as the unique character Tasha that is Wizard's copyright.
Now to the actual question. Owlbear and cloudkill are not products, services, or brands that identify Wizards of the Coast. Nor are they unique works of fiction except for the parts of their descriptions in the rules that are purely lore or flavour. So tell me then please, exactly what makes these things "clearly IP" belonging to Wizards of the Coast? What have I missed here?
Nothing. An Owlbear is "what it says on the tin" so that's merger doctrine, cloudkill is a little more unique, but Killcloud would be fine.
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
You realize it is Florida you are talking about? I mean, Florida Man is a meme for a good reason...
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
that would in fact not fall under the law. Unless it was specifically marketed and targeted children. Especially those forced to listen to it in public schools.
Wizards is not trying to protect themselves, their IP or whatever. D&D would not be where it is at today if it was not for 3rd party content. Lets face it. Wizards content is actual shit next to 3rd party. This is all about money and control. They want all of it and they are about to lose all of it.
Now to the actual question. Owlbear and cloudkill are not products, services, or brands that identify Wizards of the Coast. Nor are they unique works of fiction except for the parts of their descriptions in the rules that are purely lore or flavour. So tell me then please, exactly what makes these things "clearly IP" belonging to Wizards of the Coast? What have I missed here?
Really easy on Cloudkill--the spell name is unique to D&D and things D&D licensed. You will not find it in the Oxford English Dictionary or any other dictionary; you will not find it in works of fiction predating D&D. It might be a singular word, but it is a singular word subject to certain protections and thus is Wizards' IP.
Now, I could say that I am an attorney and that I have some experience with copyright. I could also say that I talked about this with another attorney yesterday who is an expert in copyright, and she also said that Cloudkill would be subject to protections (in between laughter and vicious mockery at trying to actually engage with people on the forums).
But I don't have to--this game's history actually provides an exact example of when Gygax tried to use someone else's singular copyrighted word and was told in no uncertain terms he could not. "Ent" as applied to treefolk, "Balrog" as a demon, etc., are subject to copyright protections by the Tolkien Estate, who came down hard on Gygax, who used both words in the first publication. Gygax had to abandon the word Ent and Balrog and switch over to treant and Balor instead.
Now, the mechanics of Cloudkill are not subject to protections--you could do exactly what Gygax did and have a spell called "Noxious Cloud" and use the same exact mechanics. You just can't call it Cloudkill.
Protections due to what, exactly? As pointed out, names and singular words are not subject to copyright, so "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not protected IP. It matters not a whiff if these names are in a dictionary or not, whether they were published somewhere else first or not. Copyright does not appear to apply.
What is your direct response to that? Am I mistaken? If so, please explain. If you are indeed "an attorney with experience with copyright,", who just "talked to another attorney expert in copyright", you ought to have the answer, right? So then, what is it?
As for the Tolkien/Gygax fight, you are leaving out the most crucial detail of. Gygax wasn't told by a judge or court that he couldn't use those words, he was told by the Tolkien estate. And instead of duking it out to the end in court, he agreed to remove them to end the lawsuit. That's right, he settled. So this is not a legal precedent as you seem to imply. The only relevance I see here is that Wizards may use the same tactics as the Tolkien estate to get their way. Of course they can! They can make whatever argument they want, serve whatever order or file whatever motion they wish, and bleed creators dry and bury them in paper. Given their resources, Wizards can "prevail" against most creators through nothing other than sheer attrition. All that doesn't change the law.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Edit: Ooops, forgot to say "Morality Police Bad, M'kay?"
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
You realize it is Florida you are talking about? I mean, Florida Man is a meme for a good reason...
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
that would in fact not fall under the law. Unless it was specifically marketed and targeted children. Especially those forced to listen to it in public schools.
The scenario isn't going to occur if LGBTQ creators don't publish the book in the first place because they, like thousands of other third party publishers, walk away from the new OGL and the increased power and control that WoTC would have over them and their creations.
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Edit: Ooops, forgot to say "Morality Police Bad, M'kay?"
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
You realize it is Florida you are talking about? I mean, Florida Man is a meme for a good reason...
I'm less worried about how the old OGL could encourage racist creators to publish A Guide to Adding Racism to the World's Most Popular RPG.
I'm more worried about how the new OGL could discourage LGBTQ creators from publishing A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG or how the new OGL could discourage BIPOC creators from publishing A Guide to Decolonizing the World's Most Popular TTRPG because the new OGL seems like a worse deal than the old OGL, and LGBTQ creators and BIPOC creators won't want to publish under it.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
that would in fact not fall under the law. Unless it was specifically marketed and targeted children. Especially those forced to listen to it in public schools.
The scenario isn't going to occur if LGBTQ creators don't publish the book in the first place because they, like thousands of other third party publishers, walk away from the new OGL and the increased power and control that WoTC would have over them and their creations.
That was more my point.
Except, for the umpteenth time since this whole mess started, WotC does not give a flying flumph if you're creating a grim and gritty setting or a super-inclusive LGBT+ book. I repeat. They. Do. Not. Care. What they care about is that the next Ernest Gygax has now had it very obviously pointed out to them that, at present, they can publish their latest hate-speech manifesto under the heading of 1.0a and there is nothing WotC can actually do to prevent them from touting the license to draw attention and tie the brand to their dreck. Thus the 6f provision. Which, again, is not some unprecedented power move. It's literally what anyone who publishes on any major online content forum such as YouTube, Twitch, or any art hosting site has essentially agreed to, barring a token appeal clause since those sites have a user reporting function and need a check on trolls. But, at the end of the day, if you want to publish your product under someone else's aegis, it is reasonable that they ensure they have the right to divorce themselves from content that would damage their brand. And no, neither grim and gritty nor representation is going to be damaging to the WotC/Hasbro brand, they've already got lines and other licensed products covering both fields, so please don't play the "but what if they're afraid of upsetting someone's delicate sensibilities" card. They are not going to police the 3PP's with a fine-toothed comb, they simply want a mechanism to divorce themselves from the outright bad actors trying to leverage the brand name as a platform for hate speech. This "WotC wants to use 6f to play Thought Police, so run far far away" is baseless fear-mongering.
It's not the thought police as much as a bad business partner and a bad business deal, based on what I have heard from LGBTQ creators who have put further development of content on hold because of the new OGL.
It's not the thought police as much as a bad business partner and a bad business deal, based on what I have heard from LGBTQ creators who have put further development of content on hold because of the new OGL.
And, I repeat, this is happening because of the baseless fearmongering going around that WotC is going to use 6f as some kind of cudgel against anyone they don't like the look of. Even though that in itself would be extraordinarily bad business.
Bad poll. The real question should be "Are you okay with OGL 1.0a applying only to all OGC currently released under that license and a new license applying to all new D&D game rules being released by Wizards"
I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. Want a new license for 6E? Fine, just release an SRD 6.0 under your new OGL and spell out in that new OGL that anything released under it cannot be released under any prior OGL and be done with it, no harm no foul.
"De-authorizing" OGL 1.0a for any Open Game content already released under, such as SRD 5.1, is simply not legal under the current OGL, IMO, and guarantees the case will be heard by a jury in a court.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
And, I repeat, this is happening because of the baseless fearmongering going around that WotC is going to use 6f as some kind of cudgel against anyone they don't like the look of....
I would not call this Baseless fearmongering by any means - the very act of WotC attempting to de-authorise 1.0 gives us the basis for this - that WotC will treat this RAW instead of RAI. For 20+ years, the community has lived under RAI for the 1.0 licence, with the community, some of those originally involved, and the now deleted FAQ all confirming it was irrevocable, even though the specific word wasn't in there. If WotC are able to argue the LETTER of the Law to have this deauthorised, that is the exact basis for why people are afraid, because that is how we will expect them to act moving forward.
That they can take something with 20 years precedent and establishment and then due to a pressing need remove it arguing the LETTER of the law, on what basis do we expect them to act differently in future? When interpreting 1.2 we have to look at what is written, not what is intended. As Written, ANYTHING Illegal (J Walking, Speeding, Smoking certain plants in certain states...) is enough for your licence to be revoked - before we even LOOK at the subjectivity of words such as harmful, obscene, or discriminatory - but what we think doesn't matter because 6F gives WotC the sole right to decide. No matter if you are truly a terrible person, someone that needs a bit of guidance to tighten up your language to be inclusive, or a saint who just happens to have a better VTT engine than WotC - it is irrelevant - 6F is the perfect tool to remove anyone from the arena that WotC doesn't want to have alongside.
Even IF 6F was somehow judged unenforceable, WotC have written in 9D, where that would be an excuse for the entire OGL1.2 to be voided in its entirety - leaving the community without EITHER 1.0 or 1.2.
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
Tell that to Mayfair Games. My very first boycott of Dungeons and Dragons was in 1993 when TSR went after Mayfair for their Role Aides like and got them shut down. I didn't buy another D&D product until the OGL release in 2000.
They cannot revoke 1.0a. And they should also put out a better version. Both are true.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
They cannot revoke 1.0a. And they should also put out a better version. Both are true.
That's contentious. They obviously think they can, and other people with legal backgrounds have agreed that they can. I've been told other lawyers say they can't, so it's impossible to really say either way, as a layman. I get you're taking a stance, or a side, but this is going to get decided in court (probably). It might not. Most of the people who would put up the sort of fight required are aligning under ORC and I imagine they'll just stay that way unless the new OGL becomes palatable to them.
They cannot revoke 1.0a. And they should also put out a better version. Both are true.
That's contentious. They obviously think they can, and other people with legal backgrounds have agreed that they can. I've been told other lawyers say they can't, so it's impossible to really say either way, as a layman. I get you're taking a stance, or a side, but this is going to get decided in court (probably). It might not. Most of the people who would put up the sort of fight required are aligning under ORC and I imagine they'll just stay that way unless the new OGL becomes palatable to them.
I think what WotC plan to do is to put out a new version and, by getting entities to sign up to it, the entities would revoke their own rights to the current OGL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Anyone that published "A Guide to Queering the World's Most Popular TTRPG" would be in violation of the the illegal activity clause since FL says you can't target minors with that, and DnD is a game, therefore for kids. Nevermind my 40 something year old gumping.
Edit: Ooops, forgot to say "Morality Police Bad, M'kay?"
Nothing. An Owlbear is "what it says on the tin" so that's merger doctrine, cloudkill is a little more unique, but Killcloud would be fine.
Please, you think the Florida government will pick a fight with a major company who they can't threaten with punitive and poorly thought out reprisals? This would be an actual free speech case, and I'd love to see them try and fight it out.
You realize it is Florida you are talking about? I mean, Florida Man is a meme for a good reason...
I'm aware, but I don't think they're ready to try and attack free speech head-on.
that would in fact not fall under the law. Unless it was specifically marketed and targeted children. Especially those forced to listen to it in public schools.
Wizards is not trying to protect themselves, their IP or whatever. D&D would not be where it is at today if it was not for 3rd party content. Lets face it. Wizards content is actual shit next to 3rd party. This is all about money and control. They want all of it and they are about to lose all of it.
Protections due to what, exactly? As pointed out, names and singular words are not subject to copyright, so "cloudkill" and "owlbear" are not protected IP. It matters not a whiff if these names are in a dictionary or not, whether they were published somewhere else first or not. Copyright does not appear to apply.
What is your direct response to that? Am I mistaken? If so, please explain. If you are indeed "an attorney with experience with copyright,", who just "talked to another attorney expert in copyright", you ought to have the answer, right? So then, what is it?
As for the Tolkien/Gygax fight, you are leaving out the most crucial detail of. Gygax wasn't told by a judge or court that he couldn't use those words, he was told by the Tolkien estate. And instead of duking it out to the end in court, he agreed to remove them to end the lawsuit. That's right, he settled. So this is not a legal precedent as you seem to imply. The only relevance I see here is that Wizards may use the same tactics as the Tolkien estate to get their way. Of course they can! They can make whatever argument they want, serve whatever order or file whatever motion they wish, and bleed creators dry and bury them in paper. Given their resources, Wizards can "prevail" against most creators through nothing other than sheer attrition. All that doesn't change the law.
“With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably." - Starfleet Admiral Aaron Satie
The scenario isn't going to occur if LGBTQ creators don't publish the book in the first place because they, like thousands of other third party publishers, walk away from the new OGL and the increased power and control that WoTC would have over them and their creations.
That was more my point.
Except, for the umpteenth time since this whole mess started, WotC does not give a flying flumph if you're creating a grim and gritty setting or a super-inclusive LGBT+ book. I repeat. They. Do. Not. Care. What they care about is that the next Ernest Gygax has now had it very obviously pointed out to them that, at present, they can publish their latest hate-speech manifesto under the heading of 1.0a and there is nothing WotC can actually do to prevent them from touting the license to draw attention and tie the brand to their dreck. Thus the 6f provision. Which, again, is not some unprecedented power move. It's literally what anyone who publishes on any major online content forum such as YouTube, Twitch, or any art hosting site has essentially agreed to, barring a token appeal clause since those sites have a user reporting function and need a check on trolls. But, at the end of the day, if you want to publish your product under someone else's aegis, it is reasonable that they ensure they have the right to divorce themselves from content that would damage their brand. And no, neither grim and gritty nor representation is going to be damaging to the WotC/Hasbro brand, they've already got lines and other licensed products covering both fields, so please don't play the "but what if they're afraid of upsetting someone's delicate sensibilities" card. They are not going to police the 3PP's with a fine-toothed comb, they simply want a mechanism to divorce themselves from the outright bad actors trying to leverage the brand name as a platform for hate speech. This "WotC wants to use 6f to play Thought Police, so run far far away" is baseless fear-mongering.
It's not the thought police as much as a bad business partner and a bad business deal, based on what I have heard from LGBTQ creators who have put further development of content on hold because of the new OGL.
And, I repeat, this is happening because of the baseless fearmongering going around that WotC is going to use 6f as some kind of cudgel against anyone they don't like the look of. Even though that in itself would be extraordinarily bad business.
I don't presume to speak for LGBTQ creators who don't trust the new OGL, but I believe that they know what's best for their businesses more than I do.
Heh. I guess "I don't presume to speak for X" is like "with all due respect".
Bad poll. The real question should be "Are you okay with OGL 1.0a applying only to all OGC currently released under that license and a new license applying to all new D&D game rules being released by Wizards"
I don't think anybody would have a problem with that. Want a new license for 6E? Fine, just release an SRD 6.0 under your new OGL and spell out in that new OGL that anything released under it cannot be released under any prior OGL and be done with it, no harm no foul.
"De-authorizing" OGL 1.0a for any Open Game content already released under, such as SRD 5.1, is simply not legal under the current OGL, IMO, and guarantees the case will be heard by a jury in a court.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I would not call this Baseless fearmongering by any means - the very act of WotC attempting to de-authorise 1.0 gives us the basis for this - that WotC will treat this RAW instead of RAI. For 20+ years, the community has lived under RAI for the 1.0 licence, with the community, some of those originally involved, and the now deleted FAQ all confirming it was irrevocable, even though the specific word wasn't in there. If WotC are able to argue the LETTER of the Law to have this deauthorised, that is the exact basis for why people are afraid, because that is how we will expect them to act moving forward.
That they can take something with 20 years precedent and establishment and then due to a pressing need remove it arguing the LETTER of the law, on what basis do we expect them to act differently in future? When interpreting 1.2 we have to look at what is written, not what is intended. As Written, ANYTHING Illegal (J Walking, Speeding, Smoking certain plants in certain states...) is enough for your licence to be revoked - before we even LOOK at the subjectivity of words such as harmful, obscene, or discriminatory - but what we think doesn't matter because 6F gives WotC the sole right to decide. No matter if you are truly a terrible person, someone that needs a bit of guidance to tighten up your language to be inclusive, or a saint who just happens to have a better VTT engine than WotC - it is irrelevant - 6F is the perfect tool to remove anyone from the arena that WotC doesn't want to have alongside.
Even IF 6F was somehow judged unenforceable, WotC have written in 9D, where that would be an excuse for the entire OGL1.2 to be voided in its entirety - leaving the community without EITHER 1.0 or 1.2.
This doesn't seem to really be a barrier to WotC at the moment
FUN FACT #1: Any publisher can publish any game product and say it is compatible with any edition of D&D. They just can't name D&D. They can say things like "compatible with the world's most famous classic fantasy adventure game" or whatever. This is what all those other publishers do.
Tell that to Mayfair Games. My very first boycott of Dungeons and Dragons was in 1993 when TSR went after Mayfair for their Role Aides like and got them shut down. I didn't buy another D&D product until the OGL release in 2000.
This is phrased poorly. It isn't an either or.
They cannot revoke 1.0a. And they should also put out a better version. Both are true.
I'm probably laughing.
It is apparently so hard to program Aberrant Mind and Clockwork Soul spell-swapping into dndbeyond they had to remake the game without it rather than implement it.
That's contentious. They obviously think they can, and other people with legal backgrounds have agreed that they can. I've been told other lawyers say they can't, so it's impossible to really say either way, as a layman. I get you're taking a stance, or a side, but this is going to get decided in court (probably). It might not. Most of the people who would put up the sort of fight required are aligning under ORC and I imagine they'll just stay that way unless the new OGL becomes palatable to them.
I think what WotC plan to do is to put out a new version and, by getting entities to sign up to it, the entities would revoke their own rights to the current OGL.