The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...
That's literally what their own FAQ said until they shamefully hid it. The community could always choose any version of the license that had been authorized to publish content.
And, just to be clear, in the advertising world you do have to be very careful about advertising the time periods offers will be available - because otherwise you can be held accountable for misleading advertising if someone tries to claim it and you didn't properly disclose an end date. No end date? Perpetual?
That may in fact be the recipe for an offer you can't easily take back.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...
That's literally what their own FAQ said until they shamefully hid it. The community could always choose any version of the license that had been authorized to publish content.
And, just to be clear, in the advertising world you do have to be very careful about advertising the time periods offers will be available - because otherwise you can be held accountable for misleading advertising if someone tries to claim it and you didn't properly disclose an end date. No end date? Perpetual?
That may in fact be the recipe for an offer you can't easily take back.
The FAQ being the "oh, yeah, that's what I meant" part. Intent is secondary to what you actually wrote and signed on the paper. Courts will sort this out at the end of the day, and honestly I won't be particularly put out by them upholding 1.0a itself. Now, all the bad actors deciding to create hate pieces and use it to go "you can't touch me!", that I will be put out about.
And, regarding the advertising bit, I've heard that both ways, including from my business law professor who I think was still practicing law. Definitely was a civil lawyer in the past.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
They do not have the right to regulate anything released under OGL 1.0a that does not violate any specification within that license. This includes SRD 5.1. If they want a new OGL and attach a new SRD to it, they can do whatever they want with that. They CANNOT deauthorize OGL 1.0a and they will face the combined legal might of nearly every corporation with a higher market cap than they have in a court of law if the ever try taking it to court. It may not be until an appeal of a lower court decision, but this is definitely a bad hill for Hasbro to attempt to die on.
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.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...
That's literally what their own FAQ said until they shamefully hid it. The community could always choose any version of the license that had been authorized to publish content.
And, just to be clear, in the advertising world you do have to be very careful about advertising the time periods offers will be available - because otherwise you can be held accountable for misleading advertising if someone tries to claim it and you didn't properly disclose an end date. No end date? Perpetual?
That may in fact be the recipe for an offer you can't easily take back.
The FAQ being the "oh, yeah, that's what I meant" part. Intent is secondary to what you actually wrote and signed on the paper. Courts will sort this out at the end of the day, and honestly I won't be particularly put out by them upholding 1.0a itself. Now, all the bad actors deciding to create hate pieces and use it to go "you can't touch me!", that I will be put out about.
And, regarding the advertising bit, I've heard that both ways, including from my business law professor who I think was still practicing law. Definitely was a civil lawyer in the past.
I agree that what's important is what they actually wrote on paper.
And what they wrote doesn't include reserving the power to de-authorize, or otherwise arbitrarily invalidate, any version of the OGL.
I'm not aware of any contract in the world where a party to it can just make up new powers that weren't granted in the original contract, lacking some sort of provision that allows them to do just that.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement...
This is literally what we're saying. When 1.0a was written, they explicitly did not spell out any means for arbitrary revocation or de-authorization. That was left out on purpose.
Therefore, the power to de-authorize or revoke does not exist. It is clear in 1.0a, because its not there.
So you're suggesting that a person only has the option to retract an offer if they specifically spell it out? Whew, now that would set a lovely precedent. I mean, you want to talk about feeling the consequences...
That's literally what their own FAQ said until they shamefully hid it. The community could always choose any version of the license that had been authorized to publish content.
And, just to be clear, in the advertising world you do have to be very careful about advertising the time periods offers will be available - because otherwise you can be held accountable for misleading advertising if someone tries to claim it and you didn't properly disclose an end date. No end date? Perpetual?
That may in fact be the recipe for an offer you can't easily take back.
The FAQ being the "oh, yeah, that's what I meant" part. Intent is secondary to what you actually wrote and signed on the paper. Courts will sort this out at the end of the day, and honestly I won't be particularly put out by them upholding 1.0a itself. Now, all the bad actors deciding to create hate pieces and use it to go "you can't touch me!", that I will be put out about.
And, regarding the advertising bit, I've heard that both ways, including from my business law professor who I think was still practicing law. Definitely was a civil lawyer in the past.
I agree that what's important is what they actually wrote on paper.
And what they wrote doesn't include reserving the power to de-authorize, or otherwise arbitrarily invalidate, any version of the OGL.
I'm not aware of any contract in the world where a party to it can just make up new powers that weren't granted in the original contract, lacking some sort of provision that allows them to do just that.
Not to mention the fact that in contract law courts tend to err on the side against the party that wrote the contract.
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.
Assuming thousands of things have been made with OGL 1.0, off the top of your head name 10 that are racist or bigoted in any major way.
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Wizards should bring back old settings and try to stop neglecting the other continents of the Forgotten Realms.
Yes I like realmslore, why do you ask?
I like dragon quest and deltarune. Yes I realize this invalidates both me and my opinion.
I hate how Fantasy words like Mezoberainian get the little red spellcheck line.
I believe in TORTLE SUPREMECY
"Hey all Scott here and this is bad, real bad"- Scott Wozniak (also every session I seem to run)
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
Someone publishing so-called "racist" game content under OGL 1.0a agree they can't say "compatible with D&D" or mention any trademark of WotC, can't use any of the public domain words in the declared "Product Identity" (Beholder, Yuan-ti, etc.) listed in the OGL, but they can publish any part or all of the SRD text, and have to include the OGL text itself.
Someone publishimg so-called "racist" game content independent of both OGL 1.0a or the proposed 1.2 can still legally use most of what's in the SRD (i.e. everything minus significant flavour text) can legally use the content that the OGL declares "Product Identity", and can legally say "compatible with D&D".or any other WotC trademark
Which is worse, really? Kind of a toss up, is it not?
“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
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
You mean imaginary racist, because the only example you can conjure up of inarguably blatantly racism to appear in the past twenty years in a product compatible with some edition of D&D is Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game.
And assuming you believe what you have just said, then there is absolute zero argument to be made for 6f.
2.x gets released.
I'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
The act of "deauthorizing" a perpetual open license is a DIRECT attack on open licensing and has incredible implications for tens of thousands of global corporations and would have direct impacts on trillions of dollars in global commerce if it stands up to a legal test.
Yeah, we'll see how long Hasbro wants to die on this hill. The EFF has already taken notice and the potential opponents in a court are already stacking up. This goes WAY beyond mere table top roleplaying games.
The implication being "spell your terms out in the agreement, don't go 'oh, yeah, that's what I meant' after the fact". You know, one of the cornerstones of contract law. WotC is not interested in going on the attack against 3PP's for being "too dark" or "too rainbow"; Hasbro literally already has lines that have gone in both directions. They want the option to, if a headline crops up along the lines of "Officially Licensed D&D Product Promotes Racial Inequality" (which would be a factually correct representation of what would have happened if Ernest Gygax had tried to pull his stunt with a 1.0a licensed product) respond with "we do not support this kind of content and have severed our ties with it", which they cannot do under 1.0a.
This is a mess of a response. You are assuming you know what WoTC will do in the future based on what your "read" of them is rather than considering what they COULD do in the future. The OGL and their wannabe changes are business licenses. No one should enter into a business agreement with one side having fiat power to change most any aspect of the agreement and having fiat power to exclude you without any meaningful redress on your part, after you may have put hundreds or more work-hours and invested capital. What they want is simply too sweeping. Shame on anyone for suggesting someone should enter into business with a billion dollar corporation without any protections because they should just trust the billion dollar corporation to treat them right.
Every idiot creator that agrees to 1.2 terms is one less creator they will have to sue to shut down (because 6F is so broad and vague, it applies to anything they want and there is no legal recourse). I don't think they really expect a lot of creators to sign on. IMO Wizards is banking on being the near-sole content provider for 6e, and assumes that the current mainstream popularity of the game will carry them through the dearth of good content. Perhaps it they are right, but perhaps not. Either way, doing away with a true open gaming license is a declaration of war on creators like we haven't seen since the later TSR days.
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
Oh yes, they're attacking Open Licensing by making a license that is open unless you use it for hate speech. The horror!
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
No one is publishing "under someone's else's banner" or using "their product."
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.
You keep making non-argument after non-argument based on your obvious lack of engagement with any books made by any of these publishers.
The thing is, they can legally say "compatible with D&D" according to trademark law. They just can't say or imply their product it *is a D&D product*. It's an artifact of OGL 1.0a that those publishing under 1.0a can't say "compatible with" any WotC trademark. This is part of the benefit that WotC gets from creators using it, along with them agreeing they won't use any of what Wizards considers "Product Identity" that are not actually protected by 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
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
You mean imaginary racist, because the only example you can conjure up of inarguably blatantly racism to appear in the past twenty years in a product compatible with some edition of D&D is Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game.
And assuming you believe what you have just said, then there is absolute zero argument to be made for 6f.
2.x gets released.
I'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
I've absolute zero issue with Wizards not wanting to be associated with a game product that promotes hate. I'm not so sure they've any real recourse against those who only use the rules of the game, either way, as they don't own the rules and only the manner it which they're expressed.
My particular concern with 6f is its use of the word "conduct" as that is way too subjective and way too open to interpretation and will provide reason enough for rampaging mobs to sift through people's trash— tweet histories, for example—and then spitefully lobby and bully the company into giving them what they want.
You can dismiss that concern as much as you like.
Your doing so isn't going to convince me you aren't just doing so because you'd share in that spite.
The point is not to stop all content that does it. The point, as I've repeatedly stated, is to dissociate their official license from such content. Because a license is a tacit endorsement of the content by the licensor. In a perfect world would their be some unimpeachable universal metric or review board they could field such issues too? Yes. Do we live in such a world? No, and in my experience there is no review process that won't attract a fair share of critics or make a controversial ruling that gets everyone up in arms. Thus, given that they almost certainly won't be able to please everybody, they're looking to keep it in-house, which- again- is how most companies run content review. Do you think YouTube, Patreon, Twitch, or Kickstarter outsource their content reviewing services? And many 3PP's trust their ability to market their products to some combination of these forums, so clearly it has been a good enough system so far. Sure they could brush up the language a bit, but that's all set dressing.
I've absolute zero issue with Wizards not wanting to be associated with a game product that promotes hate. I'm not so sure they've any real recourse against those who only use the rules of the game, either way, as they don't own the rules and only the manner it which they're expressed.
My particular concern with 6f is its use of the word "conduct" as that is way too subjective and way too open to interpretation and will provide reason enough for rampaging mobs to sift through people's trash— tweet histories, for example—and then spitefully lobby and bully the company into giving them what they want.
You can dismiss that concern as much as you like.
Your doing so isn't going to convince me you aren't just doing so because you'd share in that spite.
If those folks only use the rules - especially if they only use the rules that are being released to Creative Commons - that's fine.
The problem is if they use the license (both versions of which have WotC's name at the top.) Under 1.0a, WotC has little recourse if that happens, whereas under 1.2 they do. They can more easily get that book forcibly delisted from online storefronts, taken down from hosting sites, sue for damages if those platforms don't comply etc.
And again, WotC being the ones to define "conduct" is not unique. Youtube gets to define it, Adobe gets to define it, Spotify and Microsoft and Amazon get to define it, and so on. This is not new. Now, the three things I've proposed will make WotC's power to do that much weaker than any other company with a similar license. That's a valid compromise in my view. But to say they can't have any kind of morality clause at all is frankly ludicrous. That's not a compromise, that's an unreasonable demand and a tantrum. It gets us nowhere. Just like the demand that they leave 1.0a alone. Even Linda Codega has said it's not happening.
This is a negotiation; we should push for the best deal possible, not pie in the sky impossibility.
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
You mean imaginary racist, because the only example you can conjure up of inarguably blatantly racism to appear in the past twenty years in a product compatible with some edition of D&D is Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game.
And assuming you believe what you have just said, then there is absolute zero argument to be made for 6f.
2.x gets released.
I'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
I've absolute zero issue with Wizards not wanting to be associated with a game product that promotes hate. I'm not so sure they've any real recourse against those who only use the rules of the game, either way, as they don't own the rules and only the manner it which they're expressed.
My particular concern with 6f is its use of the word "conduct" as that is way too subjective and way too open to interpretation and will provide reason enough for rampaging mobs to sift through people's trash— tweet histories, for example—and then spitefully lobby and bully the company into giving them what they want.
You can dismiss that concern as much as you like.
Your doing so isn't going to convince me you aren't just doing so because you'd share in that spite.
The point is not to stop all content that does it. The point, as I've repeatedly stated, is to dissociate their official license from such content. Because a license is a tacit endorsement of the content by the licensor. In a perfect world would their be some unimpeachable universal metric or review board they could field such issues too? Yes. Do we live in such a world? No, and in my experience there is no review process that won't attract a fair share of critics or make a controversial ruling that gets everyone up in arms. Thus, given that they almost certainly won't be able to please everybody, they're looking to keep it in-house, which- again- is how most companies run content review. Do you think YouTube, Patreon, Twitch, or Kickstarter outsource their content reviewing services? And many 3PP's trust their ability to market their products to some combination of these forums, so clearly it has been a good enough system so far. Sure they could brush up the language a bit, but that's all set dressing.
Reread what I said. I only had to read your first sentence to know there was little point reading the remainder of what you have written. I said nothing of content. I was talking about conduct.
I'm sure you know who J. K. Rowling is.
Now imagine a publisher retweeting something she said. Nothing malicious. That would probably be enough to fuel the rage of the more radicalized elements in the hobby and if they lobbied and bullied Wizards long enough they'd probably get what they want.
You're welcome to articulate a moral and intellectual defense of why Wizards ought to be able to take food off the tables of each and every freelancer who does any work for that publisher just because radicalized elements in the hobby believe someone is a bigot.
Not legal. A moral and intellectual defense.
Inarguably blatant racism is one thing.
I couldn't care less if Wizards literally nuked someone like Ernie Gygax. But stop pretending 6f wouldn't be applied in a way that is corrupt and broken. And stop pretending this is about what Wizards ought to be able to do legally and not your just spitefully and selfishly wanting them to punish people who might disagree with you.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Look, if Wizards abuses 6f, I say screw them and walk away. If you are absolutely convinced they are constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith, walk away now. But pushing for them to drop the clause entirely or leave 1.0a up is pointless; that's one of their lines in the sand. Also, I find it amusing that you're apparently opposed to lobbying and bullying only if it's not getting you want you want out of the situation.
If those folks only use the rules, there is no need for them to even do business with Wizards. They can use a different license entirely or none and reject what Wizards eventually put on the table, and 6f is left nothing more than the empty slogan it obviously is meant to appeal to the emotions of radicalized elements in the hobby and the broader D&D community.
You're conflating content and conduct. Amazon can delist venders whose products go against their terms. They can't just delist a vender because that vender hurt someone's feelings.
Negotiation might arrive at something that pleases everyone. The behavior here since the original leak is a dire sign of an existing division, however. I think this will only divide the hobby and the community even further.
I play at three tables. And run a game. None of the people I play with are in Wizards' corner right now. We will go on doing what we do. Play a Fifth Edition houseruled with books from other publishers and from our imaginations until it's unrecognizable. Or some other edition or restatement of the game entirely.
Then let them reject WotC's license to do whatever undesirable thing they want if they want to do that. That's a good thing for both sides.
And you're very wrong about Amazon, they can terminate your account (seller or buyer) at their sole discretion, for any reason at all. That includes both content AND conduct.
As for your tables, you can do whatever you want too.
What is 6f to achieve exactly if any racist idiot can just not sign onto the license and make a game and say it's compatible with D&D and there is nothing Wizards can do about it? I wonder ↓
As I've repeatedly said, 6f is what keeps people from being able to report on a hate speech product having an official license from WotC which they can only react to with the equivalent of an admonitory finger shake. It's what allows them to clearly delineate "you are doing this on your own with no encouragement, support, or protection from us". This is the age of the clickbait article, the fact that someone can make substantially the same product without the license wouldn't matter nearly so much to anyone who wants to report on it than that they have a license and, under 1.0a, they will always have the license.
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
You mean imaginary racist, because the only example you can conjure up of inarguably blatantly racism to appear in the past twenty years in a product compatible with some edition of D&D is Ernie Gygax and his dumb racist game.
And assuming you believe what you have just said, then there is absolute zero argument to be made for 6f.
2.x gets released.
I'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
I've absolute zero issue with Wizards not wanting to be associated with a game product that promotes hate. I'm not so sure they've any real recourse against those who only use the rules of the game, either way, as they don't own the rules and only the manner it which they're expressed.
My particular concern with 6f is its use of the word "conduct" as that is way too subjective and way too open to interpretation and will provide reason enough for rampaging mobs to sift through people's trash— tweet histories, for example—and then spitefully lobby and bully the company into giving them what they want.
You can dismiss that concern as much as you like.
Your doing so isn't going to convince me you aren't just doing so because you'd share in that spite.
The point is not to stop all content that does it. The point, as I've repeatedly stated, is to dissociate their official license from such content. Because a license is a tacit endorsement of the content by the licensor. In a perfect world would their be some unimpeachable universal metric or review board they could field such issues too? Yes. Do we live in such a world? No, and in my experience there is no review process that won't attract a fair share of critics or make a controversial ruling that gets everyone up in arms. Thus, given that they almost certainly won't be able to please everybody, they're looking to keep it in-house, which- again- is how most companies run content review. Do you think YouTube, Patreon, Twitch, or Kickstarter outsource their content reviewing services? And many 3PP's trust their ability to market their products to some combination of these forums, so clearly it has been a good enough system so far. Sure they could brush up the language a bit, but that's all set dressing.
Reread what I said. I only had to read your first sentence to know there was little point reading the remainder of what you have written. I said nothing of content. I was talking about conduct.
I'm sure you know who J. K. Rowling is.
Now imagine a publisher retweeting something she said. Nothing malicious. That would probably be enough to fuel the rage of the more radicalized elements in the hobby and if they lobbied and bullied Wizards long enough they'd probably get what they want.
You're welcome to articulate a moral and intellectual defense of why Wizards ought to be able to take food off the tables of each and every freelancer who does any work for that publisher just because radicalized elements in the hobby believe someone is a bigot.
Not legal. A moral and intellectual defense.
Inarguably blatant racism is one thing.
I couldn't care less if Wizards literally nuked someone like Ernie Gygax. But stop pretending 6f wouldn't be applied in a way that is corrupt and broken. And stop pretending this is about what Wizards ought to be able to do legally and not your just spitefully and selfishly wanting them to punish people who might disagree with you.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Look, if Wizards abuses 6f, I say screw them and walk away. If you are absolutely convinced they are constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith, walk away now. But pushing for them to drop the clause entirely or leave 1.0a up is pointless; that's one of their lines in the sand. Also, I find it amusing that you're apparently opposed to lobbying and bullying only if it's not getting you want you want out of the situation.
The thing is they say it’s their like in the sand. What they are doing is legally questionable and the reasons they are giving for why they are making changes are misleading at best and false at worst. If your line in the sand is potentially not possible, they should really consider whether they need to move that line in the sand.
Wotc has unfortunately shown too many times recently they are not worthy of the trust needed to have so much power. So while they may have their line in the sand… they will need to pay the price if they want to push that. Many people will leave and already have. And their line in the sand will move if it is not lucrative enough. Because their entire thing is not a moral move. The things they are doing are not brand protection. They are disguised ways to control 3pp. To decide who can make money and smother those they don’t like for literally unchallengeable reasons. Why can’t these reasons be appealed to an unbiased 3rd party? If they are so concerned with what’s right? Especially after their own blunder with racially charged material.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We've already pointed out the problematic nature of them arbitrarily deciding what is "hateful."
That's literally what their own FAQ said until they shamefully hid it. The community could always choose any version of the license that had been authorized to publish content.
And, just to be clear, in the advertising world you do have to be very careful about advertising the time periods offers will be available - because otherwise you can be held accountable for misleading advertising if someone tries to claim it and you didn't properly disclose an end date. No end date? Perpetual?
That may in fact be the recipe for an offer you can't easily take back.
It's no more problematic than every other user license ever for third part speech; this is how it works literally everywhere else when you're given license to publish under someone else's banner. They have the right to protect their speech in how their product is used.
It's not their product.
The FAQ being the "oh, yeah, that's what I meant" part. Intent is secondary to what you actually wrote and signed on the paper. Courts will sort this out at the end of the day, and honestly I won't be particularly put out by them upholding 1.0a itself. Now, all the bad actors deciding to create hate pieces and use it to go "you can't touch me!", that I will be put out about.
And, regarding the advertising bit, I've heard that both ways, including from my business law professor who I think was still practicing law. Definitely was a civil lawyer in the past.
They do not have the right to regulate anything released under OGL 1.0a that does not violate any specification within that license. This includes SRD 5.1. If they want a new OGL and attach a new SRD to it, they can do whatever they want with that. They CANNOT deauthorize OGL 1.0a and they will face the combined legal might of nearly every corporation with a higher market cap than they have in a court of law if the ever try taking it to court. It may not be until an appeal of a lower court decision, but this is definitely a bad hill for Hasbro to attempt to die on.
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 agree that what's important is what they actually wrote on paper.
And what they wrote doesn't include reserving the power to de-authorize, or otherwise arbitrarily invalidate, any version of the OGL.
I'm not aware of any contract in the world where a party to it can just make up new powers that weren't granted in the original contract, lacking some sort of provision that allows them to do just that.
Not to mention the fact that in contract law courts tend to err on the side against the party that wrote the contract.
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.
Assuming thousands of things have been made with OGL 1.0, off the top of your head name 10 that are racist or bigoted in any major way.
Hell, even if you can name 10, they could just slip a little "no racism please" into an OGL 1.0.1 that covers them in that regard, and won't tell content creators to piss off.
Wizards should bring back old settings and try to stop neglecting the other continents of the Forgotten Realms.
Yes I like realmslore, why do you ask?
I like dragon quest and deltarune. Yes I realize this invalidates both me and my opinion.
I hate how Fantasy words like Mezoberainian get the little red spellcheck line.
I believe in TORTLE SUPREMECY
"Hey all Scott here and this is bad, real bad"- Scott Wozniak (also every session I seem to run)
I think I made this a bit too long.
1.0.1: "no racism please!"
Racist: "1.0a is still authorized, I published under that, now get lost."
Someone publishing so-called "racist" game content under OGL 1.0a agree they can't say "compatible with D&D" or mention any trademark of WotC, can't use any of the public domain words in the declared "Product Identity" (Beholder, Yuan-ti, etc.) listed in the OGL, but they can publish any part or all of the SRD text, and have to include the OGL text itself.
Someone publishimg so-called "racist" game content independent of both OGL 1.0a or the proposed 1.2 can still legally use most of what's in the SRD (i.e. everything minus significant flavour text) can legally use the content that the OGL declares "Product Identity", and can legally say "compatible with D&D".or any other WotC trademark
Which is worse, really? Kind of a toss up, is it not?
“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 SatieI'm not in favor of 6f as currently written. I want either a "General Public" standard added to it like in the Paizo Compatibility License, or to remove the "you can't sue us" clause, or to allow for a 30 day curative period before the revocation takes effect, or possibly even all three. But nuanced suggestions / compromises like these just end up getting shouted down as ad hominems fly around.
And just because EG was too dumb to try publishing his nonsense under 1.0a instead of using a clearly protected trademark, doesn't mean I think WotC should leave the barn door open for him or one of his trolls to try again.
Just because I think 1.2 is better than leaving 1.0a alone forever, doesn't mean I think it can't be improved.
Every idiot creator that agrees to 1.2 terms is one less creator they will have to sue to shut down (because 6F is so broad and vague, it applies to anything they want and there is no legal recourse). I don't think they really expect a lot of creators to sign on. IMO Wizards is banking on being the near-sole content provider for 6e, and assumes that the current mainstream popularity of the game will carry them through the dearth of good content. Perhaps it they are right, but perhaps not. Either way, doing away with a true open gaming license is a declaration of war on creators like we haven't seen since the later TSR days.
“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 SatieThe thing is, they can legally say "compatible with D&D" according to trademark law. They just can't say or imply their product it *is a D&D product*. It's an artifact of OGL 1.0a that those publishing under 1.0a can't say "compatible with" any WotC trademark. This is part of the benefit that WotC gets from creators using it, along with them agreeing they won't use any of what Wizards considers "Product Identity" that are not actually protected by 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 SatieThe point is not to stop all content that does it. The point, as I've repeatedly stated, is to dissociate their official license from such content. Because a license is a tacit endorsement of the content by the licensor. In a perfect world would their be some unimpeachable universal metric or review board they could field such issues too? Yes. Do we live in such a world? No, and in my experience there is no review process that won't attract a fair share of critics or make a controversial ruling that gets everyone up in arms. Thus, given that they almost certainly won't be able to please everybody, they're looking to keep it in-house, which- again- is how most companies run content review. Do you think YouTube, Patreon, Twitch, or Kickstarter outsource their content reviewing services? And many 3PP's trust their ability to market their products to some combination of these forums, so clearly it has been a good enough system so far. Sure they could brush up the language a bit, but that's all set dressing.
If those folks only use the rules - especially if they only use the rules that are being released to Creative Commons - that's fine.
The problem is if they use the license (both versions of which have WotC's name at the top.) Under 1.0a, WotC has little recourse if that happens, whereas under 1.2 they do. They can more easily get that book forcibly delisted from online storefronts, taken down from hosting sites, sue for damages if those platforms don't comply etc.
And again, WotC being the ones to define "conduct" is not unique. Youtube gets to define it, Adobe gets to define it, Spotify and Microsoft and Amazon get to define it, and so on. This is not new. Now, the three things I've proposed will make WotC's power to do that much weaker than any other company with a similar license. That's a valid compromise in my view. But to say they can't have any kind of morality clause at all is frankly ludicrous. That's not a compromise, that's an unreasonable demand and a tantrum. It gets us nowhere. Just like the demand that they leave 1.0a alone. Even Linda Codega has said it's not happening.
This is a negotiation; we should push for the best deal possible, not pie in the sky impossibility.
Six of one, half dozen of the other. Look, if Wizards abuses 6f, I say screw them and walk away. If you are absolutely convinced they are constitutionally incapable of acting in good faith, walk away now. But pushing for them to drop the clause entirely or leave 1.0a up is pointless; that's one of their lines in the sand. Also, I find it amusing that you're apparently opposed to lobbying and bullying only if it's not getting you want you want out of the situation.
Then let them reject WotC's license to do whatever undesirable thing they want if they want to do that. That's a good thing for both sides.
And you're very wrong about Amazon, they can terminate your account (seller or buyer) at their sole discretion, for any reason at all. That includes both content AND conduct.
As for your tables, you can do whatever you want too.
As I've repeatedly said, 6f is what keeps people from being able to report on a hate speech product having an official license from WotC which they can only react to with the equivalent of an admonitory finger shake. It's what allows them to clearly delineate "you are doing this on your own with no encouragement, support, or protection from us". This is the age of the clickbait article, the fact that someone can make substantially the same product without the license wouldn't matter nearly so much to anyone who wants to report on it than that they have a license and, under 1.0a, they will always have the license.
The thing is they say it’s their like in the sand. What they are doing is legally questionable and the reasons they are giving for why they are making changes are misleading at best and false at worst. If your line in the sand is potentially not possible, they should really consider whether they need to move that line in the sand.
Wotc has unfortunately shown too many times recently they are not worthy of the trust needed to have so much power. So while they may have their line in the sand… they will need to pay the price if they want to push that. Many people will leave and already have. And their line in the sand will move if it is not lucrative enough. Because their entire thing is not a moral move. The things they are doing are not brand protection. They are disguised ways to control 3pp. To decide who can make money and smother those they don’t like for literally unchallengeable reasons. Why can’t these reasons be appealed to an unbiased 3rd party? If they are so concerned with what’s right? Especially after their own blunder with racially charged material.