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.
I don't see it. I mean, why would anyone sign the new one (particularly the old new one) if the old one was still in play? Maybe Bob's Home Game Publishing might because he doesn't know any better, but the big players? They're multimillion dollar businesses. They have lawyers. The only way they were going to get those guys and part of a piece of their pie was if they didn't leave them any options. No, they believed from the get go that they were going to be able to deauthorise the old OGL.
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.
I don't see it. I mean, why would anyone sign the new one (particularly the old new one) if the old one was still in play? Maybe Bob's Home Game Publishing might because he doesn't know any better, but the big players? They're multimillion dollar businesses. They have lawyers. The only way they were going to get those guys and part of a piece of their pie was if they didn't leave them any options. No, they believed from the get go that they were going to be able to deauthorise the old OGL.
I'd point to the fact that the initial 1.1 had a time limit on it for the signing: that's a hint. WOTC was banking on people they sent it to being far too nervous and short on time to actually read through it carefully or get an actual legal opinion and they'd hopefully just sign it. Whether or not they had the authority to DE-authorize the old one becomes a moot point if the anyone who signs the new one waves their right to use the old one.
I'd point to the fact that the initial 1.1 had a time limit on it for the signing: that's a hint. WOTC was banking on people they sent it to being far too nervous and short on time to actually read through it carefully or get an actual legal opinion and they'd hopefully just sign it. Whether or not they had the authority to DE-authorize the old one becomes a moot point if the anyone who signs the new one waves their right to use the old one.
I still don't think the bigger TPP's would go for it. I mean clearly, they didn't. No, I think they were probably more expecting the big guys to line up to sign sweetheart deals to get better terms after speaking to their lawyers. What they weren't expecting was the leak and the community response. They made a huge cash grab and really overplayed their hand, but I don't think they doubted their ability to deauthorise the OGL.
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.
I don't see it. I mean, why would anyone sign the new one (particularly the old new one) if the old one was still in play? Maybe Bob's Home Game Publishing might because he doesn't know any better, but the big players? They're multimillion dollar businesses. They have lawyers. The only way they were going to get those guys and part of a piece of their pie was if they didn't leave them any options. No, they believed from the get go that they were going to be able to deauthorise the old OGL.
For the same exact reason they'd ever publish anything under the restrictions imposed by the original OGL despite not having to agree to that, either.
Avoiding a lawsuit.
You keep arguing as if you don't understand what the threat to the TPP is. Or why they're motivated to avoid it.
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.
I'd point to the fact that the initial 1.1 had a time limit on it for the signing: that's a hint. WOTC was banking on people they sent it to being far too nervous and short on time to actually read through it carefully or get an actual legal opinion and they'd hopefully just sign it. Whether or not they had the authority to DE-authorize the old one becomes a moot point if the anyone who signs the new one waves their right to use the old one.
I still don't think the bigger TPP's would go for it. I mean clearly, they didn't. No, I think they were probably more expecting the big guys to line up to sign sweetheart deals to get better terms after speaking to their lawyers. What they weren't expecting was the leak and the community response. They made a huge cash grab and really overplayed their hand, but I don't think they doubted their ability to deauthorise the OGL.
All of this is pure supposition, obviously.
They never needed to deauthorise the original OGL. All they had to do was include that clause in a new OGL and soft-pressure TPP into accepting those terms. They'd effectively de-authorise it themselves by agreeing to the new terms.
They can't deauthorise the original OGL. Read the thing. There is no mechanism for them to do that. It even states that once authorised you can use old versions even if they update it. That's in the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a.
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.
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.
Those entities are free to ignore the notice, roll the dice (no pun intended) and try publishing something under 1.0a after the deadline instead. In the words of every ominous DM, "you can try."
No one is now allowed to publish anything new under OGL 1.0. The old content can not be updated. They can keep publishing that old content but they can no longer use the old OGL for new content.
You fear that some GG is going to come along because someone let it out of the bag that he can NOW publish anything he wants under the OGL 1.0 is not founded in reality. Its projecting your own fears. Everyone who publishes anything already knew. There was never any loophole in the OGL. WotC was always ready and able to take anyone to court for trademark and copyright infringement. They have done it before. And won.
We do not like the new OGL for its ability to take the rights of 3rd party publishers away from them. Everyone agrees that WotC has the right to review any new 3rd party material before publication if they want to stick a D&D trademark on it or directly use WotC copyrighted material. They have always had that ability.by law.
But everyone has the right to publish any material they want without the WotC/D&D trademarks and direct copyrighted material. No one can stop them. People can just ignore it and not buy it but thats the extent of it.
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.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
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.
Those entities are free to ignore the notice, roll the dice (no pun intended) and try publishing something under 1.0a after the deadline instead. In the words of every ominous DM, "you can try."
So you recognize that WotC is weaponizing the court system to pressure other companies into compliance. Yet advocate for this.
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.
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.
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.
A name - or any single wor,d - even if it is unique, is not protected by copyright.
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
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.
"Damage their brand"?. Please. Wizard's has damaged their own brand exponentially more than Ernest Gygax ever could. What wizards actually cares about is creating near-monopoly control over the game so they can make more money, because that is what all corporations do.
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
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.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
They’ve already done grim and gritty books. This is not some binary “there can be only one” instance. As long as you aren’t wholesale plagiarizing their books or IP’s, they’re not going to come after you unless you’re the next Ernest Gygax.
"Damage their brand"?. Please. Wizard's has damaged their own brand exponentially more than Ernest Gygax ever could. What wizards actually cares about is creating near-monopoly control over the game so they can make more money, because that is what all corporations do.
So, how does this eliminate any of the other competing game systems out there? How does, say, Rolemaster rely on the 1.0? Or GURPS? Or Mage the Ascension?
Not even sure that Pathfinder really relies on the 1.0 at this stage.
I think you need to look up the term Monopoly. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Sure it does. Wizards doesn't just publish the DnD game, they make their own settings and content. 3rd party content creators are their competition. The near-monopoly they seek is over the content for the game.
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
So tell me then please, exactly what makes these things "clearly IP" belonging to Wizards of the Coast? What have I missed here?
I'm not the one who said they were "clearly" anything, that's between you and Caerwyn. I'm actually saying it ISN'T clear, and that if you or any other 3PP want to roll the dice on that, go right ahead.
My mistake. Yet when one actually gets into the nuts and bolts of what the law states, it is pretty clear that WotC does not own the "cloudkill" or "owlbear", as these things are ineligible for copyright protection and are certainly not trademarks.
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
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.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
They’ve already done grim and gritty books. This is not some binary “there can be only one” instance. As long as you aren’t wholesale plagiarizing their books or IP’s, they’re not going to come after you unless you’re the next Ernest Gygax.
You seem so confident that when given these extraordinary powers, you know exactly what Wizards would and would not do with them - and it's all benevolent (at least from your perspective). What about their fiduciary responsibility to maximise profits? Doesn't that play into their calculations about who else they should stop from publishing (i.e. other than the racists and bigots)?
“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
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.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
They’ve already done grim and gritty books. This is not some binary “there can be only one” instance. As long as you aren’t wholesale plagiarizing their books or IP’s, they’re not going to come after you unless you’re the next Ernest Gygax.
You seem so confident that when given these extraordinary powers, you know exactly what Wizards would and would not do with them....
Because they are not extraordinary. They’re the same kind of powers like places like YouTube and Twitch and Patreon already have, and have yet to go on some kind of spree with. Heck, it’s the same kind of powers you’ve agreed to to be able to post here.
"Damage their brand"?. Please. Wizard's has damaged their own brand exponentially more than Ernest Gygax ever could. What wizards actually cares about is creating near-monopoly control over the game so they can make more money, because that is what all corporations do.
So, how does this eliminate any of the other competing game systems out there? How does, say, Rolemaster rely on the 1.0? Or GURPS? Or Mage the Ascension?
Not even sure that Pathfinder really relies on the 1.0 at this stage.
I think you need to look up the term Monopoly. I don't think it means what you think it means.
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
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.
Those entities are free to ignore the notice, roll the dice (no pun intended) and try publishing something under 1.0a after the deadline instead. In the words of every ominous DM, "you can try."
So you recognize that WotC is weaponizing the court system to pressure other companies into compliance. Yet advocate for this.
I'm recognizing that the owners of property have the legal right to choose who uses that property.
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.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
They’ve already done grim and gritty books. This is not some binary “there can be only one” instance. As long as you aren’t wholesale plagiarizing their books or IP’s, they’re not going to come after you unless you’re the next Ernest Gygax.
You seem so confident that when given these extraordinary powers, you know exactly what Wizards would and would not do with them....
Because they are not extraordinary. They’re the same kind of powers like places like YouTube and Twitch and Patreon already have, and have yet to go on some kind of spree with. Heck, it’s the same kind of powers you’ve agreed to to be able to post here.
YouTube and Twitch are not in the content business, they are in the platform business. The creators are not also their competitors. The DDB forum is not a publishing/streaming platform.
Wizards of the Coast is private publisher. They only publish their own material. And not only do they publish the core rules of DnD, they also publish their own game content - setting, stories, characters, suppliments, soon a VTT, etc.
6F would give WotC unrestricted veto power over all 3rd party content published by others under this license. WotC will have the power to revoke the license for a publisher for any reason they want, as they reserve the right define what constitutes what is unacceptable to them, both in the materials being published and the behaviour of the creators/publishers themselves.
Why would they not use 6F simply to limit their competition whenever it would increase their profit? To do otherwise would be to violate their "fiduciary responsibility" to Hasbro shareholders, correct?
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
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I don't see it. I mean, why would anyone sign the new one (particularly the old new one) if the old one was still in play? Maybe Bob's Home Game Publishing might because he doesn't know any better, but the big players? They're multimillion dollar businesses. They have lawyers. The only way they were going to get those guys and part of a piece of their pie was if they didn't leave them any options. No, they believed from the get go that they were going to be able to deauthorise the old OGL.
I'd point to the fact that the initial 1.1 had a time limit on it for the signing: that's a hint. WOTC was banking on people they sent it to being far too nervous and short on time to actually read through it carefully or get an actual legal opinion and they'd hopefully just sign it. Whether or not they had the authority to DE-authorize the old one becomes a moot point if the anyone who signs the new one waves their right to use the old one.
I still don't think the bigger TPP's would go for it. I mean clearly, they didn't. No, I think they were probably more expecting the big guys to line up to sign sweetheart deals to get better terms after speaking to their lawyers. What they weren't expecting was the leak and the community response. They made a huge cash grab and really overplayed their hand, but I don't think they doubted their ability to deauthorise the OGL.
All of this is pure supposition, obviously.
For the same exact reason they'd ever publish anything under the restrictions imposed by the original OGL despite not having to agree to that, either.
Avoiding a lawsuit.
You keep arguing as if you don't understand what the threat to the TPP is. Or why they're motivated to avoid it.
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 never needed to deauthorise the original OGL. All they had to do was include that clause in a new OGL and soft-pressure TPP into accepting those terms. They'd effectively de-authorise it themselves by agreeing to the new terms.
They can't deauthorise the original OGL. Read the thing. There is no mechanism for them to do that. It even states that once authorised you can use old versions even if they update it. That's in the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a.
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.
Those entities are free to ignore the notice, roll the dice (no pun intended) and try publishing something under 1.0a after the deadline instead. In the words of every ominous DM, "you can try."
No one is now allowed to publish anything new under OGL 1.0.
The old content can not be updated. They can keep publishing that old content but they can no longer use the old OGL for new content.
You fear that some GG is going to come along because someone let it out of the bag that he can NOW publish anything he wants under the OGL 1.0 is not founded in reality. Its projecting your own fears.
Everyone who publishes anything already knew. There was never any loophole in the OGL. WotC was always ready and able to take anyone to court for trademark and copyright infringement. They have done it before. And won.
We do not like the new OGL for its ability to take the rights of 3rd party publishers away from them.
Everyone agrees that WotC has the right to review any new 3rd party material before publication if they want to stick a D&D trademark on it or directly use WotC copyrighted material. They have always had that ability.by law.
But everyone has the right to publish any material they want without the WotC/D&D trademarks and direct copyrighted material. No one can stop them. People can just ignore it and not buy it but thats the extent of it.
The problem with your assertion is that you think this is about morality or content. Its not - its about money. Every corporation has a fiscal obligation to increase the value of their shares - to make a return on investment.
Now, lets say Hasbro decides *they* want to do a super-inclusive book or a grim and gritty setting. Under 1.0a they are forced to compete. However, now they have the 6F tool and they notice that some of that grim is just a bit too dark and hateful. Or they notice that your super-inclusive book is just a bit too critical of CIS individuals. They can instantly revoke your license and force you to go away while they publish their "much better" content.
Now, it is a valid point to say they wouldn't do this because there would be widespread community backlash. It would be a valid point before OGL 1.1 changed.
None of this matters - in the end they will be forced to either re-issue the 1.0a license or adopt the ORC license to regain customers. They entire VTT strategy requires a big subscriber base for profitable monetization and enough hard-core players and DMs are just not accepting what they are trying to do.
So you recognize that WotC is weaponizing the court system to pressure other companies into compliance. Yet advocate for this.
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.
Yea
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.
A name - or any single wor,d - even if it is unique, is not protected by copyright.
“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
"Damage their brand"?. Please. Wizard's has damaged their own brand exponentially more than Ernest Gygax ever could. What wizards actually cares about is creating near-monopoly control over the game so they can make more money, because that is what all corporations do.
“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
They’ve already done grim and gritty books. This is not some binary “there can be only one” instance. As long as you aren’t wholesale plagiarizing their books or IP’s, they’re not going to come after you unless you’re the next Ernest Gygax.
Sure it does. Wizards doesn't just publish the DnD game, they make their own settings and content. 3rd party content creators are their competition. The near-monopoly they seek is over the content for the game.
“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
My mistake. Yet when one actually gets into the nuts and bolts of what the law states, it is pretty clear that WotC does not own the "cloudkill" or "owlbear", as these things are ineligible for copyright protection and are certainly not trademarks.
“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
You seem so confident that when given these extraordinary powers, you know exactly what Wizards would and would not do with them - and it's all benevolent (at least from your perspective). What about their fiduciary responsibility to maximise profits? Doesn't that play into their calculations about who else they should stop from publishing (i.e. other than the racists and bigots)?
“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
Because they are not extraordinary. They’re the same kind of powers like places like YouTube and Twitch and Patreon already have, and have yet to go on some kind of spree with. Heck, it’s the same kind of powers you’ve agreed to to be able to post here.
Hasbro has a monopoly on Monopoly. Think about it, won't you?
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
I'm recognizing that the owners of property have the legal right to choose who uses that property.
YouTube and Twitch are not in the content business, they are in the platform business. The creators are not also their competitors. The DDB forum is not a publishing/streaming platform.
Wizards of the Coast is private publisher. They only publish their own material. And not only do they publish the core rules of DnD, they also publish their own game content - setting, stories, characters, suppliments, soon a VTT, etc.
6F would give WotC unrestricted veto power over all 3rd party content published by others under this license. WotC will have the power to revoke the license for a publisher for any reason they want, as they reserve the right define what constitutes what is unacceptable to them, both in the materials being published and the behaviour of the creators/publishers themselves.
Why would they not use 6F simply to limit their competition whenever it would increase their profit? To do otherwise would be to violate their "fiduciary responsibility" to Hasbro shareholders, correct?
“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