Cans't Thou not surrender thy grievance even in the face of knowing that such is deemed so by those Powers Which Be?
Thee press a point in a place where thou are one against many, supporting a position that has neither veracity nor true gnosis behind it, and yet it is ever forward, ever defying, despite the revelations it afford all others who encounter thy words.
Blackgards and swindlers may abound, but even the most base of gentlefolk would know to step aside lest they find themselves under the glare of the eyes that see all and wield the mighty hammer of deletion.
By Gallae's great gazongas! Manifest awareness, 'fore 'tis too late and the many strikings of the bell called report begin to haunt thee!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Reminder; making objectively false claims about things said (seriously, the video is right there) in order to illicit negative responses is trolling and against site rules.
I am just going to quote this here again for visibility and as a final reminder.
Also a reminder to be civil in your discussion, even if you disagree.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
What gets me is that people were convinced - ironclad, down-to-their-toes CONVINCED - that Wizards would use Section 6f of 1.2 as a blunt object to wreck anyone and everyone they felt like wrecking, blowing up third-party properties left and right for no other earthly reason than they theoretically could...and yet those exact same people are equally convinced that there's absolutely zero chance whatsoever of literally anyone else even dreaming of doing something remotely off-kilter with the raw, unprotected hunk of Profit Steak that is D&D 5e right now.
It boggles my mind where that bizarre and illogical dichotomy comes from.
That's because it's not an unprotected hunk of profit steak. It's very well protected profit steak. It's as well protected as Pokemon or Mario or Harry Potter, or any other big name franchise you care to name. You repeating the fact that it's not protected, then ignoring the actual topic when, for instance, the actual text from the OGL that explicitly explains that it does not offer you a shield against IP theft and only pertains to game mechanics and a few little generic examples that they agree you are allowed to use (is provided to you in bold,) is not an argument.
What gets me is that people were convinced - ironclad, down-to-their-toes CONVINCED - that Wizards would use Section 6f of 1.2 as a blunt object to wreck anyone and everyone they felt like wrecking, blowing up third-party properties left and right for no other earthly reason than they theoretically could...and yet those exact same people are equally convinced that there's absolutely zero chance whatsoever of literally anyone else even dreaming of doing something remotely off-kilter with the raw, unprotected hunk of Profit Steak that is D&D 5e right now.
It boggles my mind where that bizarre and illogical dichotomy comes from.
That's because it's not an unprotected hunk of profit steak. It's very well protected profit steak. It's as well protected as Pokemon or Mario or Harry Potter, or any other big name franchise you care to name. You repeating the fact that it's not protected, then ignoring the actual topic when, for instance, the actual text from the OGL that explicitly explains that it does not offer you a shield against IP theft is provided to you in bold, is not an argument.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them - they aggressively protect their intellectual property against all comers and keep everything fairly tightly under wraps.
Wizards doesn’t do that - that’s literally the “open” part of the “open game license”. Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted, the simple reality is that there is a whole lot of content that is unquestionably Wizards’ IP. A whole lot of content that clearly identifies a product as “this is for D&D.”
And all of that—everything under OGL 1.0 is unprotected from anyone. Meta, Amazon, racists, etc. are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property. Wizards has their metaphysical house locked with a lot of their things inside, but they opened up the garage with a big old sign reading “free stuff; don’t care how you use it—heck, we’re not even going to ask you not to stab someone with our pruning shears.”
Given the world we live in - one where Amazon recently set their eyes on D&D; where a racist is actively fighting to return bigotry to TSR’s products - it is hardly surprising that they wanted to make sure Tieflings and other pretty clear cut cases are being used for Wizards’ benefit, not for others.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them...
Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted (which, sidebar, super sick of hearing a bunch of lay people debate this
Neither does D&D. The SRD is some game mechanics, some generic examples of things that are consistent with, but not exclusive to d&d, and little else. Maybe cloudkill could be copyrighted, maybe not, but that's not the argument she, or you are putting forward. You're saying that you, or i, or meta, or ANYONE ELSE could decide, today, right now, to make a DUNGEON and DRAGONS module (or a dungeon and dragons themed side business that makes novelty cakes) because the OGL is somehow deficient and does not do the one thing that it was explicitly DESIGNED to do (create a wall around Wizards of the coast's ACTUAL IP and wall it off from the public domain) and not one of you has, to my knowledge, offered a shred of evidence to support that opinion. None of you has, for example, provided a real world demonstrar of a person doing this, or highlighted the "flawed amatuerish wording" that allows this supposed theft.
And all of that—everything under OGL 1.0 is unprotected from anyone. Meta, Amazon, racists, etc. are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property.
Yes. They are. It was freely given. I can do "anything I want" with cloudkill because it was freely given. I can make a cloudkill dating app because it was freely given. Maybe it could have been protected/protectable (it's a grey area sorry if that bugs you, but it's not really a debate, it's unsettled law that nobody is really interested in testing,) maybe they didn't HAVE TO give it up to the community, but they did. Is that really the point you're trying to make though? I think you're missing a step here. How does my getting access to 1 specific thing (or 100, or 1000) that could have been wizards IP once upon a time, if only they'd done some different things, suddenly put the brand at risk from bad actors?
P.S. I can make a thundershock or thunderbolt or thunder themed dating app too. Doesn't mean I can copy pikachu.
Last year (just shy of exactly a year ago, in fact) cryptocon, err, I mean, crypto makers DAO was asked, formally and legally, not to release NFTs that infringed on Wizard’s copyright.
They want to simply take representations of existing Magic cards, from the design to the text to the illustrations, and move them onto the blockchain, selling them for their own profit.
it did not go well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Last year (just shy of exactly a year ago, in fact) cryptocon, err, I mean, crypto makers DAO was asked, formally and legally, not to release NFTs that infringed on Wizard’s copyright.
They want to simply take representations of existing Magic cards, from the design to the text to the illustrations, and move them onto the blockchain, selling them for their own profit.
it did not go well.
So I've been wondering what the whole NFT scammers thing has been about. I was so confused about the idea that people were making limited edition owlbear NFTs or something and thinking to myself "i'm not even sure what the scam is, there." I was thinking VTT tokens or something maybe? Making MTG card NFTs makes sooooo much more sense. Thanks for that.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them...
Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted (which, sidebar, super sick of hearing a bunch of lay people debate this
are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property.
Neither does D&D. The SRD is some game mechanics, some generic examples of things that are consistent with, but not exclusive to d&d, and little else. Maybe cloudkill could be copyrighted, maybe not, but that's not the argument she, or you are putting forward. You're saying that you, or i, or meta, or ANYONE ELSE could decide, today, right now, to make a DUNGEON and DRAGONS module (or a dungeon and dragons themed side business that makes novelty cakes) because the OGL is somehow deficient and does not do the one thing that it was explicitly DESIGNED to do (create a wall around Wizards of the coast's ACTUAL IP and wall it off from the public domain) and not one of you has, to my knowledge, offered a shred of evidence to support that opinion. None of you has, for example, provided a real world demonstrar of what you're talking about, or highlighted the "flawed amatuerish wording" that allows this supposed theft.
Yes. They are. It was freely given. I can do "anything I want" with cloudkill because it was freely given. I can make a cloudkill dating app because it was freely given. Maybe it could have been protected (it's a grey area sorry if that bugs you, but it's not really a debate, it's unsettled law that nobody is really interested in testing,) maybe they didn't HAVE TO give it up to the community, but they did. Is that really the point you're trying to make though? I think you're missing a step here. How does my getting access to 1 specific thing (or 100, or 1000) that could have been wizards IP once upon a time, if only they'd done some different things, suddenly put the brand at risk from bad actors?
P.S. I can make a thundershock or thunderbolt or thunder themed dating app too. Doesn't mean I can copy pikachu.
You are literally back to square one - making the same wrong point that I initially commented on. Literally no one is saying Meta is going to try and make something called D&D. No one except you in your quest to mischaracterise what others are saying.
What folks are saying - including Kyle - is that Wizards was concerned that OGL opened the door to Meta, Amazon, and racists making something that was D&D compatible and used enough D&D elements clearly recognisable as D&D, even if it didn’t say D&D on it.
But, of course, you already knew that’s what Kyle said; you already know that’s what Yueri said; you already know that’s what I said, because that was explicitly pointed out to you. Yet you decided to go back to square one regardless, choosing instead to double down on responding to something you know no one was talking about because—frankly, I can’t fathom why. So, I’ll just leave it at that.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them...
Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted (which, sidebar, super sick of hearing a bunch of lay people debate this
are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property.
Neither does D&D. The SRD is some game mechanics, some generic examples of things that are consistent with, but not exclusive to d&d, and little else. Maybe cloudkill could be copyrighted, maybe not, but that's not the argument she, or you are putting forward. You're saying that you, or i, or meta, or ANYONE ELSE could decide, today, right now, to make a DUNGEON and DRAGONS module (or a dungeon and dragons themed side business that makes novelty cakes) because the OGL is somehow deficient and does not do the one thing that it was explicitly DESIGNED to do (create a wall around Wizards of the coast's ACTUAL IP and wall it off from the public domain) and not one of you has, to my knowledge, offered a shred of evidence to support that opinion. None of you has, for example, provided a real world demonstrar of what you're talking about, or highlighted the "flawed amatuerish wording" that allows this supposed theft.
Yes. They are. It was freely given. I can do "anything I want" with cloudkill because it was freely given. I can make a cloudkill dating app because it was freely given. Maybe it could have been protected (it's a grey area sorry if that bugs you, but it's not really a debate, it's unsettled law that nobody is really interested in testing,) maybe they didn't HAVE TO give it up to the community, but they did. Is that really the point you're trying to make though? I think you're missing a step here. How does my getting access to 1 specific thing (or 100, or 1000) that could have been wizards IP once upon a time, if only they'd done some different things, suddenly put the brand at risk from bad actors?
P.S. I can make a thundershock or thunderbolt or thunder themed dating app too. Doesn't mean I can copy pikachu.
You are literally back to square one - making the same wrong point that I initially commented on. Literally no one is saying Meta is going to try and make something called D&D. No one except you in your quest to mischaracterise what others are saying.
What folks are saying - including Kyle - is that Wizards was concerned that OGL opened the door to Meta, Amazon, and racists making something that was D&D compatible and used enough D&D elements clearly recognisable as D&D, even if it didn’t say D&D on it.
But, of course, you already knew that’s what Kyle said; you already know that’s what Yueri said; you already know that’s what I said, because that was explicitly pointed out to you. Yet you decided to go back to square one regardless, choosing instead to double down on responding to something you know no one was talking about because—frankly, I can’t fathom why. So, I’ll just leave it at that.
With or without the OGL people can do this just as long as the rules are not copying and pasting the expression laid out in the SRD.
I am yet to see you even once respond to that point.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them...
Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted (which, sidebar, super sick of hearing a bunch of lay people debate this
are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property.
Neither does D&D. The SRD is some game mechanics, some generic examples of things that are consistent with, but not exclusive to d&d, and little else. Maybe cloudkill could be copyrighted, maybe not, but that's not the argument she, or you are putting forward. You're saying that you, or i, or meta, or ANYONE ELSE could decide, today, right now, to make a DUNGEON and DRAGONS module (or a dungeon and dragons themed side business that makes novelty cakes) because the OGL is somehow deficient and does not do the one thing that it was explicitly DESIGNED to do (create a wall around Wizards of the coast's ACTUAL IP and wall it off from the public domain) and not one of you has, to my knowledge, offered a shred of evidence to support that opinion. None of you has, for example, provided a real world demonstrar of what you're talking about, or highlighted the "flawed amatuerish wording" that allows this supposed theft.
Yes. They are. It was freely given. I can do "anything I want" with cloudkill because it was freely given. I can make a cloudkill dating app because it was freely given. Maybe it could have been protected (it's a grey area sorry if that bugs you, but it's not really a debate, it's unsettled law that nobody is really interested in testing,) maybe they didn't HAVE TO give it up to the community, but they did. Is that really the point you're trying to make though? I think you're missing a step here. How does my getting access to 1 specific thing (or 100, or 1000) that could have been wizards IP once upon a time, if only they'd done some different things, suddenly put the brand at risk from bad actors?
P.S. I can make a thundershock or thunderbolt or thunder themed dating app too. Doesn't mean I can copy pikachu.
You are literally back to square one - making the same wrong point that I initially commented on. Literally no one is saying Meta is going to try and make something called D&D. No one except you in your quest to mischaracterise what others are saying.
What folks are saying - including Kyle - is that Wizards was concerned that OGL opened the door to Meta, Amazon, and racists making something that was D&D compatible and used enough D&D elements clearly recognisable as D&D, even if it didn’t say D&D on it.
But, of course, you already knew that’s what Kyle said; you already know that’s what Yueri said; you already know that’s what I said, because that was explicitly pointed out to you. Yet you decided to go back to square one regardless, choosing instead to double down on responding to something you know no one was talking about because—frankly, I can’t fathom why. So, I’ll just leave it at that.
No, you are. You really really are.
If you're really tired of having this argument (which you claim) then, next time say "legally distinct copy" or something else that conveys what you are saying, if indeed, that is what you're saying. Because when you say things like "people are going use the poorly worded OGL and the 'loopholes' to STEAL wizards IP" people think you mean the actual IP and not vaguely fantasyesqe things that can be plugged into ANY tabletop system and which, conversely are not actually anybody's IP. I know you can't "fathom" why, but trust me on this. That's what you're saying. Also, Yuri's post earlier talking about a D&D themed dating app is not consistent with your interpretation of her original post, so I don't think you are, in fact, in agreement about what she was saying. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think, perhaps, you're the one who stepped into a conversation you didn't understand and have been trying to push it into a direction that didn't arbitrarily suggest that the OGL allows for literal IP theft.
But hey, so long as we can ALL AGREE that the OGL is NOT responsible for plagirism that exceeds the allowable scope of what the OGL is, says and does, that it's an appropriately worded document that isn't some giant loophole that magically allows big companies like Disney and Meta to do anything nefarious that was not intended by wizards of the coast when they released it in the first place; that it does it's job effectively, and that its actually copyright law that you have a problem with. Fine. Somehow I doubt you're willing to stipulate to that, but, if you are, then I guess we drop it here.
With or without the OGL people can do this just as long as the rules are not copying and pasting the expression laid out in the SRD.
I am yet to see you even once respond to that point.
Because it's both incorrect and irrelevant. "D&D Compatible Material" uses the expression laid out in the SRD and the core rulebooks. That material is all anyone needs to make a product that could easily and naturally be confused for an Official D&D Branded Endorsed Product. The fact that it wouldn't have all the same trade dress honestly does not matter - the average layperson wouldn't know a damn thing about the difference and would consider it to be "A D&D Product". If Meta wants to cash in on Tieflings & Tittilation, their hot new Metaverse ****hookup "dating" app, Wizards has to deal with the fact that this 'product' is now indelibly associated with their brand. Amazon same thing - they've ordered six seasons of Critical Role animation already, and it's only through sheer dint of the CR team being Good People in a world filled with shitlords that Legend of Vox Machina hasn't already stomped all over Wizards' IP. If Critical Role wasn't so tied to Wizards, who's to say what they'd do at Amazon's behest for the sake of more ad dollars? Would you say that LoVM is somehow not "A D&D Product"?
Seriously. The constant refrain that "it's not 'A D&D Product' if it doesn't have Dungeons and Dragons trade dress" is inane and pointless. Nobody cares. Stop harping on it.
The important thing for me was that they were respectful. They gave Kyle the chance to answer every question without interruption, none of Kyle's answers were scoffed at, and they didn't repeat the same talking points ad nauseam (like "draft!!!!") like we've seen here, for the most part they asked the question once and moved on when they got an answer. When they didn't immediately move on it was because there was something there to probe on and get additional detail. Again, I thought it was a good showing from both sides, even if it is picking at the scab to a degree.
I did not get the feeling that they were respectful at all. And they did repeat several questions/ask questions that he'd already given the answer to. I remember thinking several times during the video "Dude, he already answered that, why are you wasting time asking things he already gave an answer to". And it wasn't entirely clear why there were 3 people involved when 95% of the video only involved two of them.
The interview definitely felt unprofessional to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
With or without the OGL people can do this just as long as the rules are not copying and pasting the expression laid out in the SRD.
I am yet to see you even once respond to that point.
Because it's both incorrect and irrelevant. "D&D Compatible Material" uses the expression laid out in the SRD and the core rulebooks. That material is all anyone needs to make a product that could easily and naturally be confused for an Official D&D Branded Endorsed Product. The fact that it wouldn't have all the same trade dress honestly does not matter - the average layperson wouldn't know a damn thing about the difference and would consider it to be "A D&D Product". If Meta wants to cash in on Tieflings & Tittilation, their hot new Metaverse ****hookup "dating" app, Wizards has to deal with the fact that this 'product' is now indelibly associated with their brand. Amazon same thing - they've ordered six seasons of Critical Role animation already, and it's only through sheer dint of the CR team being Good People in a world filled with shitlords that Legend of Vox Machina hasn't already stomped all over Wizards' IP. If Critical Role wasn't so tied to Wizards, who's to say what they'd do at Amazon's behest for the sake of more ad dollars? Would you say that LoVM is somehow not "A D&D Product"?
Seriously. The constant refrain that "it's not 'A D&D Product' if it doesn't have Dungeons and Dragons trade dress" is inane and pointless. Nobody cares. Stop harping on it.
"D&D Compatible Material" Just wanted to take a second and point out that no, the OGL does not allow this use of their product Identity. Copyright law does, CC-BY does (?) OGL does NOT. When you use the OGL you agree not to use ANY WotC IP, even in an otherwise legal fashion, such as suggesting compatibility with their products. The OGL is actually a safeguard against this exact thing you're railing against.
"7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement"
The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D,...
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
Ah, I see we are now at the stage where folks address people who are not in the thread.
cool, cool, carry on, carry on…
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
Don't you think that if there were some company out there that had signed the OGL 1.1 that they would have said as much by now? We know that it was the big creators like Critical Role and Kobold Press that were contacted with this.
Do you think that there were defenseless little mom n pop creators sitting at a table with hired thugs glaring at them while WotC lawyers forced them to sign contracts as they twirled their mustache?
My point was that Kyle's answer concerning the "Draft" OGL 1.1" was far from satisfactory. There will be other interviews, and Kyle will have another chance to answer. We are talking about the interview here, are we not? Sorry to intrude on your private little spat.
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
You didn't have to sign. There was no signature required. 1.1 deauthorizes 1.0a on Jan 13th and says everyone is subject to the new terms, like them or not. I think you're referring to the rumored SIGN THIS NOW "partner" deals that offer alternate terms like royalties "as low as 15%" or a 12 month waiver that were allegedly sent out along with a "draft 1.1" and were essentially a gun to the head strongarm tactic being aggressively misrepresented by WotC as a "survey of interest and request for feedback" or whatever. Those deals offered individually tailored/negotiated terms that aren't really public but are confirmed to exist by multiple sources. I would be surprised if anyone signed as the deadline was a week out and why rush? I also don't really think whether anyone signed is the important question in the draft/draft controversy. A better question might be: if 1.1 was under active development and you were already leaning towards replacing it with 1.2 and you were just collecting feedback... why is the word draft plastered ALL OVER 1.2 in giant neon read it from space lettering while does not? Why is there a 2 page FAQ section attached to 1.1?
From the leak "What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operateunder the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if youwant to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to theOGL: Commercial."
#early draft still under development guys. We totally want feedback. Really.
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
Don't you think that if there were some company out there that had signed the OGL 1.1 that they would have said as much by now? We know that it was the big creators like Critical Role and Kobold Press that were contacted with this.
Do you think that there were defenseless little mom n pop creators sitting at a table with hired thugs glaring at them while WotC lawyers forced them to sign contracts as they twirled their mustache?
Some of those "defenseless little mom n pop creators" chose to cease distribution of their games until Wizards chose to back down. Let's not pretend Wizards' behavior this past month has earned them many friends in the industry.
Ultimately, it no longer matters. Wizards chose to back down.
I know a lot of sore losers here want to start thread after thread or post post after post about "much needed" changes to the existing OGL or why Wizards "deserve" royalties but the war is over.
There were no defenseless mom and pop creators that received a copy of the draft. They were all established and successful companies. There were no victims of the OGL 1.1 to release. That is the point being made to Salguod that you seemed to have missed.
Some of those "defenseless little mom n pop creators" chose to cease distribution of their games until Wizards chose to back down. Let's not pretend Wizards' behavior this past month has earned them many friends in the industry.
Ultimately, it no longer matters. Wizards chose to back down.
I know a lot of sore losers here want to start thread after thread or post post after post about "much needed" changes to the existing OGL or why Wizards "deserve" royalties but the war is over.
To be fair, while I understand the instinct to approach this sort of thing conservatively, they didn't HAVE TO stop distribution and their decision to be cautious was their own. 1.0a was never even (technichally, irrevokably) revoked. Blaming Wizards for that is like blaming them for a hypothetical Tee.fling themed hookup app.
Ululani wept!
Cans't Thou not surrender thy grievance even in the face of knowing that such is deemed so by those Powers Which Be?
Thee press a point in a place where thou are one against many, supporting a position that has neither veracity nor true gnosis behind it, and yet it is ever forward, ever defying, despite the revelations it afford all others who encounter thy words.
Blackgards and swindlers may abound, but even the most base of gentlefolk would know to step aside lest they find themselves under the glare of the eyes that see all and wield the mighty hammer of deletion.
By Gallae's great gazongas! Manifest awareness, 'fore 'tis too late and the many strikings of the bell called report begin to haunt thee!
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I am just going to quote this here again for visibility and as a final reminder.
Also a reminder to be civil in your discussion, even if you disagree.
Feature Requests || Homebrew FAQ || Pricing FAQ || Hardcovers FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
That's because it's not an unprotected hunk of profit steak. It's very well protected profit steak. It's as well protected as Pokemon or Mario or Harry Potter, or any other big name franchise you care to name. You repeating the fact that it's not protected, then ignoring the actual topic when, for instance, the actual text from the OGL that explicitly explains that it does not offer you a shield against IP theft and only pertains to game mechanics and a few little generic examples that they agree you are allowed to use (is provided to you in bold,) is not an argument.
Again, your legal analysis is questionable at best. Those other IPs don’t have a big ol’ “hey, use this stuff” sign on them - they aggressively protect their intellectual property against all comers and keep everything fairly tightly under wraps.
Wizards doesn’t do that - that’s literally the “open” part of the “open game license”. Because, despite all your talk about “grey areas” and what can and cannot be copyrighted, the simple reality is that there is a whole lot of content that is unquestionably Wizards’ IP. A whole lot of content that clearly identifies a product as “this is for D&D.”
And all of that—everything under OGL 1.0 is unprotected from anyone. Meta, Amazon, racists, etc. are free to do whatever they want with Wizards’ freely given property. Wizards has their metaphysical house locked with a lot of their things inside, but they opened up the garage with a big old sign reading “free stuff; don’t care how you use it—heck, we’re not even going to ask you not to stab someone with our pruning shears.”
Given the world we live in - one where Amazon recently set their eyes on D&D; where a racist is actively fighting to return bigotry to TSR’s products - it is hardly surprising that they wanted to make sure Tieflings and other pretty clear cut cases are being used for Wizards’ benefit, not for others.
Neither does D&D. The SRD is some game mechanics, some generic examples of things that are consistent with, but not exclusive to d&d, and little else. Maybe cloudkill could be copyrighted, maybe not, but that's not the argument she, or you are putting forward. You're saying that you, or i, or meta, or ANYONE ELSE could decide, today, right now, to make a DUNGEON and DRAGONS module (or a dungeon and dragons themed side business that makes novelty cakes) because the OGL is somehow deficient and does not do the one thing that it was explicitly DESIGNED to do (create a wall around Wizards of the coast's ACTUAL IP and wall it off from the public domain) and not one of you has, to my knowledge, offered a shred of evidence to support that opinion. None of you has, for example, provided a real world demonstrar of a person doing this, or highlighted the "flawed amatuerish wording" that allows this supposed theft.
Yes. They are. It was freely given. I can do "anything I want" with cloudkill because it was freely given. I can make a cloudkill dating app because it was freely given. Maybe it could have been protected/protectable (it's a grey area sorry if that bugs you, but it's not really a debate, it's unsettled law that nobody is really interested in testing,) maybe they didn't HAVE TO give it up to the community, but they did. Is that really the point you're trying to make though? I think you're missing a step here. How does my getting access to 1 specific thing (or 100, or 1000) that could have been wizards IP once upon a time, if only they'd done some different things, suddenly put the brand at risk from bad actors?
P.S. I can make a thundershock or thunderbolt or thunder themed dating app too. Doesn't mean I can copy pikachu.
Last year (just shy of exactly a year ago, in fact)
cryptocon, err, I mean, crypto makers DAO was asked, formally and legally, not to release NFTs that infringed on Wizard’s copyright.They want to simply take representations of existing Magic cards, from the design to the text to the illustrations, and move them onto the blockchain, selling them for their own profit.
it did not go well.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
So I've been wondering what the whole NFT scammers thing has been about. I was so confused about the idea that people were making limited edition owlbear NFTs or something and thinking to myself "i'm not even sure what the scam is, there." I was thinking VTT tokens or something maybe? Making MTG card NFTs makes sooooo much more sense. Thanks for that.
You are literally back to square one - making the same wrong point that I initially commented on. Literally no one is saying Meta is going to try and make something called D&D. No one except you in your quest to mischaracterise what others are saying.
What folks are saying - including Kyle - is that Wizards was concerned that OGL opened the door to Meta, Amazon, and racists making something that was D&D compatible and used enough D&D elements clearly recognisable as D&D, even if it didn’t say D&D on it.
But, of course, you already knew that’s what Kyle said; you already know that’s what Yueri said; you already know that’s what I said, because that was explicitly pointed out to you. Yet you decided to go back to square one regardless, choosing instead to double down on responding to something you know no one was talking about because—frankly, I can’t fathom why. So, I’ll just leave it at that.
I did in the very post you copied.
No, you are. You really really are.
If you're really tired of having this argument (which you claim) then, next time say "legally distinct copy" or something else that conveys what you are saying, if indeed, that is what you're saying. Because when you say things like "people are going use the poorly worded OGL and the 'loopholes' to STEAL wizards IP" people think you mean the actual IP and not vaguely fantasyesqe things that can be plugged into ANY tabletop system and which, conversely are not actually anybody's IP. I know you can't "fathom" why, but trust me on this. That's what you're saying. Also, Yuri's post earlier talking about a D&D themed dating app is not consistent with your interpretation of her original post, so I don't think you are, in fact, in agreement about what she was saying. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I think, perhaps, you're the one who stepped into a conversation you didn't understand and have been trying to push it into a direction that didn't arbitrarily suggest that the OGL allows for literal IP theft.
But hey, so long as we can ALL AGREE that the OGL is NOT responsible for plagirism that exceeds the allowable scope of what the OGL is, says and does, that it's an appropriately worded document that isn't some giant loophole that magically allows big companies like Disney and Meta to do anything nefarious that was not intended by wizards of the coast when they released it in the first place; that it does it's job effectively, and that its actually copyright law that you have a problem with. Fine. Somehow I doubt you're willing to stipulate to that, but, if you are, then I guess we drop it here.
Because it's both incorrect and irrelevant. "D&D Compatible Material" uses the expression laid out in the SRD and the core rulebooks. That material is all anyone needs to make a product that could easily and naturally be confused for an Official D&D Branded Endorsed Product. The fact that it wouldn't have all the same trade dress honestly does not matter - the average layperson wouldn't know a damn thing about the difference and would consider it to be "A D&D Product". If Meta wants to cash in on Tieflings & Tittilation, their hot new Metaverse
****hookup"dating" app, Wizards has to deal with the fact that this 'product' is now indelibly associated with their brand. Amazon same thing - they've ordered six seasons of Critical Role animation already, and it's only through sheer dint of the CR team being Good People in a world filled with shitlords that Legend of Vox Machina hasn't already stomped all over Wizards' IP. If Critical Role wasn't so tied to Wizards, who's to say what they'd do at Amazon's behest for the sake of more ad dollars? Would you say that LoVM is somehow not "A D&D Product"?Seriously. The constant refrain that "it's not 'A D&D Product' if it doesn't have Dungeons and Dragons trade dress" is inane and pointless. Nobody cares. Stop harping on it.
Please do not contact or message me.
I did not get the feeling that they were respectful at all. And they did repeat several questions/ask questions that he'd already given the answer to. I remember thinking several times during the video "Dude, he already answered that, why are you wasting time asking things he already gave an answer to". And it wasn't entirely clear why there were 3 people involved when 95% of the video only involved two of them.
The interview definitely felt unprofessional to me.
Please check out my homebrew, I would appreciate feedback:
Spells, Monsters, Subclasses, Races, Arcknight Class, Occultist Class, World, Enigmatic Esoterica forms
"D&D Compatible Material"
Just wanted to take a second and point out that no, the OGL does not allow this use of their product Identity. Copyright law does, CC-BY does (?) OGL does NOT. When you use the OGL you agree not to use ANY WotC IP, even in an otherwise legal fashion, such as suggesting compatibility with their products. The OGL is actually a safeguard against this exact thing you're railing against.
"7. Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement"
I think that everybody is tired of the "OGL 1.1 was just a draft" issue. Come on Kyle, this would be SO easy to put to bed, why don't you end this? Just answer these yes or no questions, we don't need additional detail and we know you don't want to provide details. That's okay, just a simple "Yes" or "No" will suffice.
1. Did anyone (individual or organization) sign the "draft" OGL 1.1? (Yes or No)
If the answer is "No" then we are done. If nobody signed, then no harm, no foul. I'll let you call it a draft. I won't ask if anyone felt pressured to sign but did not sign. You win Kyle, it was a draft.
If the answer is "Yes", someone signed the document, then sorry Kyle, you lose. OGL 1.1 was not a draft if someone signed it. They signed it because they were pressured to sign the "not a draft" document and they were afraid of getting an even worse agreement. So followup question:
2. Have you offered to release anyone who signed OGL 1.1 from the agreement?
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
Ah, I see we are now at the stage where folks address people who are not in the thread.
cool, cool, carry on, carry on…
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Don't you think that if there were some company out there that had signed the OGL 1.1 that they would have said as much by now? We know that it was the big creators like Critical Role and Kobold Press that were contacted with this.
Do you think that there were defenseless little mom n pop creators sitting at a table with hired thugs glaring at them while WotC lawyers forced them to sign contracts as they twirled their mustache?
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
My point was that Kyle's answer concerning the "Draft" OGL 1.1" was far from satisfactory. There will be other interviews, and Kyle will have another chance to answer. We are talking about the interview here, are we not? Sorry to intrude on your private little spat.
Nathair Sgiathach is my co-pilot
You didn't have to sign. There was no signature required. 1.1 deauthorizes 1.0a on Jan 13th and says everyone is subject to the new terms, like them or not. I think you're referring to the rumored SIGN THIS NOW "partner" deals that offer alternate terms like royalties "as low as 15%" or a 12 month waiver that were allegedly sent out along with a "draft 1.1" and were essentially a gun to the head strongarm tactic being aggressively misrepresented by WotC as a "survey of interest and request for feedback" or whatever. Those deals offered individually tailored/negotiated terms that aren't really public but are confirmed to exist by multiple sources. I would be surprised if anyone signed as the deadline was a week out and why rush? I also don't really think whether anyone signed is the important question in the draft/draft controversy. A better question might be: if 1.1 was under active development and you were already leaning towards replacing it with 1.2 and you were just collecting feedback... why is the word draft plastered ALL OVER 1.2 in giant neon read it from space lettering while does not? Why is there a 2 page FAQ section attached to 1.1?
From the leak "What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial."
#early draft still under development guys. We totally want feedback. Really.
There were no defenseless mom and pop creators that received a copy of the draft. They were all established and successful companies. There were no victims of the OGL 1.1 to release. That is the point being made to Salguod that you seemed to have missed.
She/Her College Student Player and Dungeon Master
To be fair, while I understand the instinct to approach this sort of thing conservatively, they didn't HAVE TO stop distribution and their decision to be cautious was their own. 1.0a was never even (technichally, irrevokably) revoked. Blaming Wizards for that is like blaming them for a hypothetical Tee.fling themed hookup app.