This OGL is certainly far better, but it again completely misunderstands the OGL 1.0a. This is a license to use WotC's SRD which was only one facet of the OGL. WotC only released 5 (?) products under OGL 1.0a:
SRD 3.0
SRD 3.5
Fiend Folio
SRD 5.0 (if I recall properly)
SRD 5.1 (to fix some oopses in 5.0)
But countless publishers have released thousands and thousands of products adding Open Gaming Content to what WotC promised was a permanent commons. Those publishers entered that license fully expecting their OGC to be permanently available to future publishers. Even though the SRDs are very important, the OGC released by other publishers far, far outweighs the OGC released by WotC. The SRDs are only a small sliver of all of the Open Gaming Content available under OGL 1.0a. Sure with that many products, there's some real stinkers, but there have also been some real gems that deserve to still exist (and go beyond simple "game mechanics that can't be copyrighted").
What happens to all of that?
Many of those publishers no longer exist. At least one I know personally, and very likely many others, have passed away. They believed they were releasing their works into the community for future publishers to carry on.
It's nice that WotC isn't going to make anyone take down previously published works, but what about all of the Open Gaming Content they added to the commons? OGL 1.2 even states it is only for licensing the SRD which completely guts the entire share-alike OGC aspects that was a strength of the OGL. If OGL 1.0a is revoked, what about the 23 years of Open Gaming Content that far outweighs the SRDs, especially for publishers that no longer exist? Are those just orphaned license-wise despite WotC promising for 23 years that would not happen?
I think the idea is that people will no longer be able to make new works with the old OGL. The old license will not be revoked, but the ability to publish new stuff under it will be revoked.
[deauthorizing 1.0a] It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Oh, I understand that completely. But what about this example to maybe clarify:
Before all of this OGL fiasco happened, I was writing an OGL product to publish this year. Having been around for the d20 boom, there's all kinds of great material that could be used in 5e that newer fans & writers might overlook. I was using Open Gaming Content from Bastion Press' Minions, Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors, Dreamscarred Press' psionics work, Malhavoc Press' Chaositech, etc. Under OGL 1.2, all of those products can continue to be sold. However, under OGL 1.2 all of that Open Gaming Content is gone. No future product can use any of that Open Gaming Content.
With OGL 1.2, that commons is simply gone.
With OGL 1.0a revoked and OGL 1.2 only covering SRD 5.1, that means no future product can use OGL 1.0a licensed content, and 23 years of open gaming content just vanishes from community use, despite WotC themselves promising that would not happen.
You are asking a question Wizards cannot and should not answer - Wizards is only able to provide a license to their specific content and their property.
If anyone else released their intellectual property under OGL 1.0’s terms, those items still remain the intellectual property of the creator, and that creator was the one granting the license, not Wizards. They were using the same terms as Wizards and intending the items to be part of the same usage, but they were still themselves.
Wizards cannot control what license a creator gives to other third parties—they can only grant a license to property they own. As such, the change to OGL 1.0 is completely irrelevant - it will be up to individual creators to decide what licensing metrics they want to use, not Wizards.
Until those publishers (or their heirs or assignees) change their minds, the effective equivalent of 1.0 remains in force, albeit with the terms de facto replacing Wizards’ name with whomever granted the license.
With OGL 1.0a revoked and OGL 1.2 only covering SRD 5.1, that means no future product can use OGL 1.0a licensed content, and 23 years of open gaming content just vanishes from community use, despite WotC themselves promising that would not happen.
That make more sense?
Oh, yeah, makes sense. They aren't deleting the old license from existence; they are saying it can not be used for their stuff anymore.
I believe Wizards of the Coast had said that they planned to offer a grace period for products already in development. I'm not sure if that is still on the table or not. But with the changes between 1.0 and 1.2 being almost nothing, I think it's fine to just publish the work under 1.2 unless the work in question is barred by the hateful content part.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
How I'm posting based on text formatting: Mod Hat On - Mod Hat Off
You are asking a question Wizards cannot and should not answer - Wizards is only able to provide a license to their specific content and their property.
If anyone else released their intellectual property under OGL 1.0’s terms, those items still remain the intellectual property of the creator, and that creator was the one granting the license, not Wizards. They were using the same terms as Wizards and intending the items to be part of the same usage, but they were still themselves.
Wizards cannot control what license a creator gives to other third parties—they can only grant a license to property they own. As such, the change to OGL 1.0 is completely irrelevant - it will be up to individual creators to decide what licensing metrics they want to use, not Wizards.
Until those publishers (or their heirs or assignees) change their minds, the effective equivalent of 1.0 remains in force, albeit with the terms de facto replacing Wizards’ name with whomever granted the license.
My issue is that those publishers DID decide the terms under which their IP was released to third parties. The OGL 1.0a and WotC's explicit explanation that OGL 1.0a would be a permanent licensing of that material to third parties. So WotC attempting to revoke OGL 1.0a and replacing with a new OGL license that does not address any of the OGC previously licensed is, in fact, WotC interfering with the licensing between those publishers and third parties.
Or even more extreme example (doesn't concern me personally, but is certainly related) - there are games licensed under OGL 1.0a that do not use the SRD and do not include any of WotC's IP. They are license agreements between two parties, neither of which is WotC. Yet, WotC de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a is an attempt to end the licensing between those parties as well. (Not deliberately, but as collateral damage because current WotC mistakenly views OGL 1.0a as a license for the SRD when it was not. It was a license for OGC of which the SRDs were just a few covered products out of tens if not hundreds of thousands.)
With OGL 1.0a revoked and OGL 1.2 only covering SRD 5.1, that means no future product can use OGL 1.0a licensed content, and 23 years of open gaming content just vanishes from community use, despite WotC themselves promising that would not happen.
That make more sense?
Oh, yeah, makes sense. They aren't deleting the old license from existence; they are saying it can not be used for their stuff anymore.
(what the lawyer said)
But it states:
NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license.
If that's true, that means OGL 1.0a cannot be used at all. Not that it cannot be used for just WotC's content. Maybe they intend to only have it mean you can't use SRD material and that other OGC can still be used, but intent not being perfectly captured in the license language is what got us into this mess in the first place. ;) The license itself says OGL 1.0a is not longer an authorized license. Period, no exceptions for certain content and not others.
Hopefully they can update the terms of OGL 1.2 to carry forward OGC. But right now, intent or not, the wording of this license cuts off all that OGC for future use unless all those publishers go back and re-license all 23 years of that OGC.
You are asking a question Wizards cannot and should not answer - Wizards is only able to provide a license to their specific content and their property.
If anyone else released their intellectual property under OGL 1.0’s terms, those items still remain the intellectual property of the creator, and that creator was the one granting the license, not Wizards. They were using the same terms as Wizards and intending the items to be part of the same usage, but they were still themselves.
Wizards cannot control what license a creator gives to other third parties—they can only grant a license to property they own. As such, the change to OGL 1.0 is completely irrelevant - it will be up to individual creators to decide what licensing metrics they want to use, not Wizards.
Until those publishers (or their heirs or assignees) change their minds, the effective equivalent of 1.0 remains in force, albeit with the terms de facto replacing Wizards’ name with whomever granted the license.
My issue is that those publishers DID decide the terms under which their IP was released to third parties. The OGL 1.0a and WotC's explicit explanation that OGL 1.0a would be a permanent licensing of that material to third parties. So WotC attempting to revoke OGL 1.0a and replacing with a new OGL license that does not address any of the OGC previously licensed is, in fact, WotC interfering with the licensing between those publishers and third parties.
Or even more extreme example (doesn't concern me personally, but is certainly related) - there are games licensed under OGL 1.0a that do not use the SRD and do not include any of WotC's IP. They are license agreements between two parties, neither of which is WotC. Yet, WotC de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a is an attempt to end the licensing between those parties as well. (Not deliberately, but as collateral damage because current WotC mistakenly views OGL 1.0a as a license for the SRD when it was not. It was a license for OGC of which the SRDs were just a few covered products out of tens if not hundreds of thousands.)
They literally cannot comment on what third parties dod or did not authorise - they have no right to do so.
There is a certain irony here - after spending weeks trying to protect third party publisher’s rights, you are now upset that Wizards is not violating their rights.
You are asking a question Wizards cannot and should not answer - Wizards is only able to provide a license to their specific content and their property.
If anyone else released their intellectual property under OGL 1.0’s terms, those items still remain the intellectual property of the creator, and that creator was the one granting the license, not Wizards. They were using the same terms as Wizards and intending the items to be part of the same usage, but they were still themselves.
Wizards cannot control what license a creator gives to other third parties—they can only grant a license to property they own. As such, the change to OGL 1.0 is completely irrelevant - it will be up to individual creators to decide what licensing metrics they want to use, not Wizards.
Until those publishers (or their heirs or assignees) change their minds, the effective equivalent of 1.0 remains in force, albeit with the terms de facto replacing Wizards’ name with whomever granted the license.
My issue is that those publishers DID decide the terms under which their IP was released to third parties. The OGL 1.0a and WotC's explicit explanation that OGL 1.0a would be a permanent licensing of that material to third parties. So WotC attempting to revoke OGL 1.0a and replacing with a new OGL license that does not address any of the OGC previously licensed is, in fact, WotC interfering with the licensing between those publishers and third parties.
Or even more extreme example (doesn't concern me personally, but is certainly related) - there are games licensed under OGL 1.0a that do not use the SRD and do not include any of WotC's IP. They are license agreements between two parties, neither of which is WotC. Yet, WotC de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a is an attempt to end the licensing between those parties as well. (Not deliberately, but as collateral damage because current WotC mistakenly views OGL 1.0a as a license for the SRD when it was not. It was a license for OGC of which the SRDs were just a few covered products out of tens if not hundreds of thousands.)
They literally cannot comment on what third parties dod or did not authorise - they have no right to do so.
There is a certain irony here - after spending weeks trying to protect Wizards’ rights, you are now upset that Wizards is not violating their rights.
Look, I know you are a lawyer and knowledgeable about this stuff. But, honestly, this comes off as utterly misunderstanding open-source style licensing altogether to give a flip response. I'm sure you know better.
I think the problem here is, that 3pp misunderstood the OGL 1.0a as something that it never was. It is not open-source style, it is open licensing, so it is only WotC <-> 3pp and not also 3pp <-> 3pp (or 3pp <-> 4pp) licensing.
Yes, I do understand, that 3pp thought that and relied on it, but that is nowhere to be found in the OGL 1.0(a)
I am not trying to be glib, but you are asking for something Wizards does not have any right to decide. This is not a case where they made a license that invited everyone to submit content to a common pool—it is a case where they made a pool of just their own content, offered anyone to use the pool, and other nearby pools said “hey, you can use our pool also.”
I am sure we will see many third party publishers join and update to 1.2, likely under the same terms and likely with similar “but if you used our stuff under 1.0, you still get 1.0” language, either explicitly drafting those agreements or just saying that’s what they’re doing.
If you want more clarity, you’ll have to email the pool owner - that would not be Wizards.
I think the problem here is, that 3pp misunderstood the OGL 1.0a as something that it never was. It is not open-source style, it is open licensing, so it is only WotC <-> 3pp and not also 3pp <-> 3pp (or 3pp <-> 4pp) licensing.
Yes, I do understand, that 3pp thought that and relied on it, but that is nowhere to be found in the OGL 1.0(a)
You might want to re-read OGL 1.0a. It absolutely is a (admittedly flawed) license between 3pp and 3pp and not a license specifically just for the SRD. 3PP's did not misunderstand anything. I was there and working with various publishers since 2000 and followed the debates with Ryan Dancey, Clark Peterson, and many publishers & freelancers discussing the OGL even pre-1.0 on industry discussion lists. I fully admit it is not a great license, but even the far better ones had issues 20+ years ago that needed revising. But it absolutely, unequivocally was intended to be an open-source style license.
Believe me, I did not have to suffer through MONTHS of pedantic arguments over "whether PI was OGC you couldn't use or not OGC at all" to have that history re-written to claim it was only a license between WotC <-> 3pp and not 3pp <-> 3pp. ;)
OGL 1.2 is explicitly that. But OGL 1.0a is not. OGL 1.0a was designed to be a open-source style commons license.
Yes, you are actually right KenMarble, the wording is a bit confusing in the OGL 1.0(a) but it acutally is a pool where every OGL labelled product can also be used under the OGL (minus copyrighted content).
The problem then really is the not sufficiently stated irrevocability or any other clause adressing the continuation of said OGC pool.
This would, in the current situation, actually mean, that all 3pp need to negotiate new contracts for themselves.
This OGL is certainly far better, but it again completely misunderstands the OGL 1.0a. This is a license to use WotC's SRD which was only one facet of the OGL. WotC only released 5 (?) products under OGL 1.0a:
But countless publishers have released thousands and thousands of products adding Open Gaming Content to what WotC promised was a permanent commons. Those publishers entered that license fully expecting their OGC to be permanently available to future publishers. Even though the SRDs are very important, the OGC released by other publishers far, far outweighs the OGC released by WotC. The SRDs are only a small sliver of all of the Open Gaming Content available under OGL 1.0a. Sure with that many products, there's some real stinkers, but there have also been some real gems that deserve to still exist (and go beyond simple "game mechanics that can't be copyrighted").
What happens to all of that?
Many of those publishers no longer exist. At least one I know personally, and very likely many others, have passed away. They believed they were releasing their works into the community for future publishers to carry on.
It's nice that WotC isn't going to make anyone take down previously published works, but what about all of the Open Gaming Content they added to the commons? OGL 1.2 even states it is only for licensing the SRD which completely guts the entire share-alike OGC aspects that was a strength of the OGL. If OGL 1.0a is revoked, what about the 23 years of Open Gaming Content that far outweighs the SRDs, especially for publishers that no longer exist? Are those just orphaned license-wise despite WotC promising for 23 years that would not happen?
I think the idea is that people will no longer be able to make new works with the old OGL. The old license will not be revoked, but the ability to publish new stuff under it will be revoked.
Quote:
[deauthorizing 1.0a] It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Oh, I understand that completely. But what about this example to maybe clarify:
Before all of this OGL fiasco happened, I was writing an OGL product to publish this year. Having been around for the d20 boom, there's all kinds of great material that could be used in 5e that newer fans & writers might overlook. I was using Open Gaming Content from Bastion Press' Minions, Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors, Dreamscarred Press' psionics work, Malhavoc Press' Chaositech, etc. Under OGL 1.2, all of those products can continue to be sold. However, under OGL 1.2 all of that Open Gaming Content is gone. No future product can use any of that Open Gaming Content.
With OGL 1.2, that commons is simply gone.
With OGL 1.0a revoked and OGL 1.2 only covering SRD 5.1, that means no future product can use OGL 1.0a licensed content, and 23 years of open gaming content just vanishes from community use, despite WotC themselves promising that would not happen.
That make more sense?
You are asking a question Wizards cannot and should not answer - Wizards is only able to provide a license to their specific content and their property.
If anyone else released their intellectual property under OGL 1.0’s terms, those items still remain the intellectual property of the creator, and that creator was the one granting the license, not Wizards. They were using the same terms as Wizards and intending the items to be part of the same usage, but they were still themselves.
Wizards cannot control what license a creator gives to other third parties—they can only grant a license to property they own. As such, the change to OGL 1.0 is completely irrelevant - it will be up to individual creators to decide what licensing metrics they want to use, not Wizards.
Until those publishers (or their heirs or assignees) change their minds, the effective equivalent of 1.0 remains in force, albeit with the terms de facto replacing Wizards’ name with whomever granted the license.
Oh, yeah, makes sense. They aren't deleting the old license from existence; they are saying it can not be used for their stuff anymore.
(what the lawyer said)
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
ModeratorI believe Wizards of the Coast had said that they planned to offer a grace period for products already in development. I'm not sure if that is still on the table or not. But with the changes between 1.0 and 1.2 being almost nothing, I think it's fine to just publish the work under 1.2 unless the work in question is barred by the hateful content part.
Homebrew Rules || Homebrew FAQ || Snippet Codes || Tooltips
DDB Guides & FAQs, Class Guides, Character Builds, Game Guides, Useful Websites, and WOTC Resources
My issue is that those publishers DID decide the terms under which their IP was released to third parties. The OGL 1.0a and WotC's explicit explanation that OGL 1.0a would be a permanent licensing of that material to third parties. So WotC attempting to revoke OGL 1.0a and replacing with a new OGL license that does not address any of the OGC previously licensed is, in fact, WotC interfering with the licensing between those publishers and third parties.
Or even more extreme example (doesn't concern me personally, but is certainly related) - there are games licensed under OGL 1.0a that do not use the SRD and do not include any of WotC's IP. They are license agreements between two parties, neither of which is WotC. Yet, WotC de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a is an attempt to end the licensing between those parties as well. (Not deliberately, but as collateral damage because current WotC mistakenly views OGL 1.0a as a license for the SRD when it was not. It was a license for OGC of which the SRDs were just a few covered products out of tens if not hundreds of thousands.)
But it states:
If that's true, that means OGL 1.0a cannot be used at all. Not that it cannot be used for just WotC's content. Maybe they intend to only have it mean you can't use SRD material and that other OGC can still be used, but intent not being perfectly captured in the license language is what got us into this mess in the first place. ;) The license itself says OGL 1.0a is not longer an authorized license. Period, no exceptions for certain content and not others.
Hopefully they can update the terms of OGL 1.2 to carry forward OGC. But right now, intent or not, the wording of this license cuts off all that OGC for future use unless all those publishers go back and re-license all 23 years of that OGC.
They literally cannot comment on what third parties dod or did not authorise - they have no right to do so.
There is a certain irony here - after spending weeks trying to protect third party publisher’s rights, you are now upset that Wizards is not violating their rights.
Look, I know you are a lawyer and knowledgeable about this stuff. But, honestly, this comes off as utterly misunderstanding open-source style licensing altogether to give a flip response. I'm sure you know better.
I think the problem here is, that 3pp misunderstood the OGL 1.0a as something that it never was. It is not open-source style, it is open licensing, so it is only WotC <-> 3pp and not also 3pp <-> 3pp (or 3pp <-> 4pp) licensing.
Yes, I do understand, that 3pp thought that and relied on it, but that is nowhere to be found in the OGL 1.0(a)
I am not trying to be glib, but you are asking for something Wizards does not have any right to decide. This is not a case where they made a license that invited everyone to submit content to a common pool—it is a case where they made a pool of just their own content, offered anyone to use the pool, and other nearby pools said “hey, you can use our pool also.”
I am sure we will see many third party publishers join and update to 1.2, likely under the same terms and likely with similar “but if you used our stuff under 1.0, you still get 1.0” language, either explicitly drafting those agreements or just saying that’s what they’re doing.
If you want more clarity, you’ll have to email the pool owner - that would not be Wizards.
You might want to re-read OGL 1.0a. It absolutely is a (admittedly flawed) license between 3pp and 3pp and not a license specifically just for the SRD. 3PP's did not misunderstand anything. I was there and working with various publishers since 2000 and followed the debates with Ryan Dancey, Clark Peterson, and many publishers & freelancers discussing the OGL even pre-1.0 on industry discussion lists. I fully admit it is not a great license, but even the far better ones had issues 20+ years ago that needed revising. But it absolutely, unequivocally was intended to be an open-source style license.
Believe me, I did not have to suffer through MONTHS of pedantic arguments over "whether PI was OGC you couldn't use or not OGC at all" to have that history re-written to claim it was only a license between WotC <-> 3pp and not 3pp <-> 3pp. ;)
OGL 1.2 is explicitly that. But OGL 1.0a is not. OGL 1.0a was designed to be a open-source style commons license.
Yes, you are actually right KenMarble, the wording is a bit confusing in the OGL 1.0(a) but it acutally is a pool where every OGL labelled product can also be used under the OGL (minus copyrighted content).
The problem then really is the not sufficiently stated irrevocability or any other clause adressing the continuation of said OGC pool.
This would, in the current situation, actually mean, that all 3pp need to negotiate new contracts for themselves.