We don't need another OGL thread, so here is one anyway. I try to keep it brief and to the point to get this out and done with.
An abridged history of the past few weeks: The leaked, NDA'd, "draft" (lawyer use: "everything is a draft until signed") was dastardly. Truly, some cut-throat corporate power play dastardly. I genuinely thought it was a joke at first. The DND brand seems to have been so misunderstood in relation to the DND product. The first WOTC response was more of the same - seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of who the audience was. Although the "we are not idiots, WOTC" responses are certainly valid, there is also a degree of "this cannot be real, right?; "Are they seriously talking to the adults in the room?"
Second response was better; third response was better; new OGL draft better maybe?
Much discussion ensues, people trying to understand a legal document, discern tea leaves of what is the intention, lawyers (Lawyers!?!) commenting on it, sides and battlelines being drawn as fingers being pointed. World famous newspapers commenting, stock prices being monitored (-4% at time of writing BTW), forums being checked first and last thing in the day, youtube being checked for latest.
All this work to understand wtf is going on to play a game of make believe, for goodness sake. Then I realize that for me, the player and the DM, this is an awful lot of work to play said game of make believe. I used to get psyched when I got the official character sheets on that awesome thick tan/orange paper that had AC inside a shield and THACO next to it. Our DM, Paul the kid who lived two doors over in the cul-de-sac, would walk over with some graph paper and dice. I saved up my money for Ral Partha minis from Hobbies Emporium (thanks Reno, NV). Read Dragonlance because it was on the check out counter and I totally dug the picture of Tanis Half Elven on it. Good memories to be honest and simple ones too. Wasn't that hard.
So much work today with WOTC as I try to figure out what the actual hell is going on, as the first attempt at changing the OGL was dastardly, some real evil corporate power play. My opinion anyway.
Meanwhile, the competition basically Paladin's the crap out of the entire thing by saying "Nah, here is the right thing to do. Nobody asked us to do it. All are welcome to do it with us and we've got the tab covered."
Far less work. It just pragmatic at this point. Jesus, the drama burnses and the work is exhausting.
Edit - misspelling in the title. I have a PhD. Doh.
I'm not having trouble discerning Wizards motives.
They want the right to terminate anyone's license with 30 days notice and sue if you don't IMMEDIATELY stop publishing and recall your unsold stock, without recourse, so that they can kill anyone who gets too big or otherwise threatens their pocketbook. They want other rights, like, total immunity from lawsuits in any form from "partners." I'm sure there's a Christmas wish-list somewhere.
And they want the right to prevent VTTs from pretending to be adobe reader (a platform, content agnostic) when people use "unofficial" sources that wizards can't be bothered to shut down themselves, because the VTTs are the actual target. Wizards either wants to cripple them, or get them under their thumb, and the new OGL is what gets them there.
Oh, and they want to release digital only products of some kind, hide it behind a subscription model instead of a publishers model and turn DND into the next marvel, which nobody will accept unless they can kill 5e DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, and since 5.5 is 5e compatible, that won't work so long as 1.0a exists so that has to die too, otherwise people will just keep publishing stuff compatible with SRD 5.1 and people will keep buying/using/playing that. Can't have DNDNext without killing DNDLast. They will be DNDOne.
And finally, they want to put the 3rd party community "In their place." and make sure everybody knows that they aren't authors, they are parasites. WotC is top dog, you are unpaid, freelance, hired help. You work at their pleasure. You might own the rights to YOUR WORK, but they have the final say on anything you write. "Partners?" "Collegues?" "Competitors?"
Nah, that's just the foot in the door excuse. "We can't let them continue because it's harmful to our brand" is a catch-all excuse. If you read the fine print, they can interpret "harmful to the brand" to mean basically anything. The hatespeech stuff is just red meat. It's not even aimed at us, it's aimed at the not-really-involved walking pocketbooks parents who buy TTRPG materials for their kids to play with (without them). Hasbro is a family friendly company, they'll say. Only the most honest and fourthrite murderhobos will take up the call, they'll say. We are stewards of the brand! We are shining knights! Join us. For FAERUN! They'll say.
I would see it very differently, let me be the devils advocate there.
They have seen some racist game, and they feared it might tarnish the reputation of D&D (because it used OGL and stuff from the SRD) or the hobby as a whole. I haven't seen that game, so I am not sure if it was really racism, or it was a parody suggesting D&D and many old TSR games were / are still racist. Some of the rules quoted in news report were insane enough to suggest it was a parody. The controversy can advertise the game and when they cure the problems and people see it as a joke, that can be profitable, but still can get D&D cancelled.
When they reacted they were like other people, with plenty of confirmation bias, and stuck in their own bubbles and echo chambers, and were keen to solve all the problems executives might have seen with OGL. They have ignored some of the key benefits, some of the markets, and ended up with polishing a "solution" that wouldn't solve anything, but can make things worse. Why? The people behind the racist game allegedly already broke the OGL, they would break the new one as well and the speed and result of the lawsuit wouldn't be that much different. The new OLG prevents nothing but can make serious problems for both Wizards and other creators.
Their other alleged problem was how everyone made profit and they thought they have done all the hard work and the rest just profited from it. But as D20 SRD was used as default open license by everyone, even people who would never use the D&D system for their products for various reasons, still contributed to the market and it made D&D a better and more profitable game. Big ego of Wizards execs, combined with confirmation bias, echo chambers (official meetings), led to an OGL that is unacceptable to the people who might release maps, token packs, system agnostic story ideas, etc. under OGL, so who gain nothing from Wizards but help the game... Wizards is too slow to understand several parts of the problem and fails to react.
People with storefront that make buck from selling products by many of these independent creators decided they need a new licence (ORC) to save the market and let their systems benefit from these independent creators. If Hasbro wants to die to its own arrogance and stupidity so be it...
How would some hypothetical game, let's call it goblins and monkeys, cause harm to the DND brand? They aren't even associated. WotC OWNS DND and they can (and will) shut anyone hard if they even breath in the direction of ACTUAL IP that they could conceivably win a court case over (eg, not open-sourced SRD material)... This is true, regardless of the content of OGL. That's why they have their wizard's approved d20 badges with stricter rules that let people claim a greater (but still removed) level of affiliation with WotC's ethos.
Or do you mean, like a group of people got together to play actual DND on youtube or something, and added in a bunch of rules about (no need to be explicit here, I suppose. Imaginations people!) Because that has nothing to do with the OGL. You can't stop people from burning bibles. WotC has no more right to control what fans do with their actual property and their time than anyone else concerned about their "brand image." Toyota can't stop people from driving drunk by stealing your car if you get a DUI, Subway couldn't steal Jared's 8x pair of giant pants when he got caught being a creep. That is well and truly beyond the scope of this conversation... but since you went there (or I did?) let's imagine an alternate reality where the actual target of the OGL changes was not content publishers, but actual hobbyists playing the actual game that they purchased as a fun hobby and a way to blow off steam. Wizards goes around, setting an arbitrary bar for things like "too much profanity in a game," or "too much boom boom." "your fantasy accents are culturally insensitive."
You posit that that's the *real* purpose behind 1.2/2.0? That is a scary thought indeed. Fortunately, I am fairly certain that WotC has little to no interest in policing how I personally run a game of 5e or Next or One or whatever. Please do not disabuse me of my naivety, because I wouldn't take it well, and we're already on very shaky ground with WotC trying to claw-back the 5.1SRD and screw over publishers. I have my own mental health to consider, you understand.
Yeah, I guess my point here is that I no longer want to have to discern motives for an enjoyable activity. I like my fun with less work and way less drama.
So yeah. I'll vote with my wallet in the direction of less drama.
Some corrections: The game in question was created by Ernest Gygax, son of Gary and one of the founders of D&D himself (he was an early player and staff member - Tenser, of Floating Disk fame and an anagram for his name, was his playable character).
Gygax seeks to publish a new version of Star Frontiers - an old TSR game Wizards owns the rights to and which Wizards still sells old PDFs of, so are still using those rights in commerce. Gygax’s stated goal is to make his version of Star Frontiers comport with his and his father’s views on TTRPGs, including some blatant racism (the rules, which are very much not parody but Gygax’s own views, say things like “some races are superior to other, just like in the real world”).
Wizards is suing them for using Wizards’ Star Frontiers trademark and tarnishing the brand of Star Frontiers. It looks like a pretty easy case, and that Wizards should prevail all things considered.
It was not done under OGL 1.0 - but it could have been. Rather than steal very clearly protected intellectual property, Gygax could have made content under 1.0 with the exact same types of statements in it. Under 1.0 - which is not a clearly written document at all - Gygax would have been able to use OGL 1.0 and publish things where he uses certain N-words as the name for one of the playable races, and it would not be super clear whether that was permissible or not under OGL 1.0 or whether a racist could use OGL 1.0 in court to protect themselves from being shut down by Wizards.
This whole affair all but certainly scared the heck out of Wizards’ lawyers - they likely were thinking “we dodged a bullet this time, since Gygax was so foolish as to use something we so clearly have protections on—but imagine what a disaster it would have been if he used this embarrassingly poorly written OGL instead? We got to fix that.”
It is a completely legitimate and completely necessary reason to change the OGL.
And it is more important to have those protections than ever given one of the single biggest benefits creators get from OGL 1.2 - they get the right to put the D&D ampersand on their products (something 1.0 did not). That makes their products clearly identifiable as “you can play this with the game that has the biggest market share” at a glance—a great boon when trying to expand beyond hardcore gamers who look up what books are comparable with what, as now casual players, grandmothers looking for presents, etc. all can quickly see that your book will work for D&D itself.
But when your trademark is on something, you want to make sure it doesn’t get tarnished - after all, you don’t want folks to see the ampersand and question “wait, is this content going to also be racist?” When you are not just giving up copyrights, but also licensing trademark rights, one needs to be more careful—the trademark stands for something and you need to be able to defend what you want it to stand for.
Gygax seeks to publish a new version of Star Frontiers - an old TSR game Wizards owns the rights to ...
Wizards is suing them for using Wizards’ Star Frontiers trademark and tarnishing the brand of Star Frontiers. It looks like a pretty easy case, and that Wizards should prevail all things considered.
So, you've made my point for me. Wizards owns the IP. They won't let anyone, not even the Gygax estate mess with their IP.
It was not done under OGL 1.0 - but it could have been. Rather than steal very clearly protected intellectual property, Gygax could have made content under 1.0 with the exact same types of statements in it.
Yes. He could have... but the difference is that that content wouldn't be Star Frontiers. It would have been "Our father's Stars" or "Stars of Gygax" or something else. Something that, again, would have NOTHING TO DO with WotC's intellectual property. ... ... And?
Gygax would have been able to use OGL 1.0 and publish things where he uses certain N-words as the name for one of the playable races, and it would not be super clear whether that was permissible or not under OGL 1.0 or whether a racist could use OGL 1.0 in court to protect themselves from being shut down by Wizards.
This whole affair all but certainly scared the heck out of Wizards’ lawyers
Oh, no. It's super clear. They. Cannot. Do. That. Gygax is free to reproduce SRD content under 1.0a in ANY context or world or theme that he wishes to, so long as it doesn't infringe on wizards actual IP. Cowboys, gay cowboys, racist gay cowboys. It's a free country and an open license that anyone can use. Even the racists. Again, though, who cares? Why is it WotC responsibility to shut down Gygax and his "Stars of our fathers" RPG? Because they own the concept of rolling dice and battling monsters? No. They do not.
If he uses their (Wizards-owned) Worlds, People, Artwork, Gods, logos, trade dress, lore, history or unique McGuffins, those things belong to Wizards and are not included in the SRD which was literally created for and exists only for that exact purpose, copyright law kicks in and the legal/Open License bits become irrelevant.
And it is more important to have those protections than ever given one of the single biggest benefits creators get from OGL 1.2 - they get the right to put the D&D ampersand on their products (something 1.0 did not).
Could have easily been an entirely different license that one could opt into. I absolutely agree with you, in that case, WotC would have a vested interest in standardizing a collective ethos, if that's what they wanted to do. That being said, just because Wizards is smashing two disconnected ideas together like a toddler playing barbie and GI joe, that does not inherently mean they are related.
But when your trademark is on something, you want to make sure it doesn’t get tarnished - after all, you don’t want folks to see the ampersand and question “wait, is this content going to also be racist?” When you are not just giving up copyrights, but also licensing trademark rights, one needs to be more careful—the trademark stands for something and you need to be able to defend what you want it to stand for.
Again, Trademark is outside of this discussion. D&D owns all their trademarks and can do with them what they want. No D&D trademarks are included in ANY version of ANY OGL or SRD materials and are completely outside the scope of any discussion on the topic of a new OGL. The two concepts are, in fact, entirely incompatible. Open is Open.
1.0 is not a clearly written document in the slightest - a first year low student should be embarrassed to have written it. Just for one example, t has critical terms that are not defined in the terminology provision, including what an “authorised version” constitutes, which is part of the reason there is such confusion about what Wizards did or did not actually promise. The document also clearly indicates they can deauthorise if, but do not really set forth what that means or how that could come about.
And you are straight up wrong that trademark does not apply to 1.2. It is on the first substantive page of the document that content released under 1.2 can use a Wizards’ trademark. There are literally illustrations—one in colour—showing what parts of Wizards’ trademark you can display on your 1.2 content. It is neigh impossible to miss.
And that is not even to mention the hypocrisy of saying that racists should have the “freedom” to leech off of Wizards’ brand, while denying that Wizards, as the owner of the actual intellectual property, has the more fundamental freedom to exercise their free speech in deciding how their own property is used.
Ignoring something prevalently placed and ignoring one entity’s greater rights, all to defend the right to publish racism while using someone else’s name? Not a great look.
Some corrections: The game in question was created by Ernest Gygax, son of Gary and one of the founders of D&D himself (he was an early player and staff member - Tenser, of Floating Disk fame and an anagram for his name, was his playable character).
Gygax seeks to publish a new version of Star Frontiers - an old TSR game Wizards owns the rights to and which Wizards still sells old PDFs of, so are still using those rights in commerce. Gygax’s stated goal is to make his version of Star Frontiers comport with his and his father’s views on TTRPGs, including some blatant racism (the rules, which are very much not parody but Gygax’s own views, say things like “some races are superior to other, just like in the real world”).
Wizards is suing them for using Wizards’ Star Frontiers trademark and tarnishing the brand of Star Frontiers. It looks like a pretty easy case, and that Wizards should prevail all things considered.
It was not done under OGL 1.0 - but it could have been. Rather than steal very clearly protected intellectual property, Gygax could have made content under 1.0 with the exact same types of statements in it. Under 1.0 - which is not a clearly written document at all - Gygax would have been able to use OGL 1.0 and publish things where he uses certain N-words as the name for one of the playable races, and it would not be super clear whether that was permissible or not under OGL 1.0 or whether a racist could use OGL 1.0 in court to protect themselves from being shut down by Wizards.
This whole affair all but certainly scared the heck out of Wizards’ lawyers - they likely were thinking “we dodged a bullet this time, since Gygax was so foolish as to use something we so clearly have protections on—but imagine what a disaster it would have been if he used this embarrassingly poorly written OGL instead? We got to fix that.”
It is a completely legitimate and completely necessary reason to change the OGL.
And it is more important to have those protections than ever given one of the single biggest benefits creators get from OGL 1.2 - they get the right to put the D&D ampersand on their products (something 1.0 did not). That makes their products clearly identifiable as “you can play this with the game that has the biggest market share” at a glance—a great boon when trying to expand beyond hardcore gamers who look up what books are comparable with what, as now casual players, grandmothers looking for presents, etc. all can quickly see that your book will work for D&D itself.
But when your trademark is on something, you want to make sure it doesn’t get tarnished - after all, you don’t want folks to see the ampersand and question “wait, is this content going to also be racist?” When you are not just giving up copyrights, but also licensing trademark rights, one needs to be more careful—the trademark stands for something and you need to be able to defend what you want it to stand for.
Let me ask you this (and I understand this isn't a legal opinion or anything): If I create Raizo Inc. and publish Guidefinder which is basically 5.5e (similar to what Pathfinder did with 3.5 -> 3.75) and it's perfectly fine in re section 6f and Wizards does nothing. Then it gets big similar to Pathfinder. Now I create an adventure path that is horror themed and it has some things that some people might find objectionable (I won't get into detail for obvious reasons though I understand that may effect the answer).
Wizards decides to revoke the license under 6(f). Does that apply to just this adventure path or to Raizo Inc's use of the license meaning all Guidefinder content now longer can't be published under OGL 1.2?
And that is not even to mention the hypocrisy of saying that racists should have the “freedom” to
Should? What I said is you live in a free country and it's an OPEN LICENSE. Neither of those statements touch on the morality of contract law. Feel free to move, or offer an additional, more restrictive license with more mutually favorable terms. That's both legal, and good business. Some people might even go so far as to say it was common sense.
The document is searchable. By all means, copy the line that says Wizards may "deauthorize."
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
In lawyer land, when you use two similar terms in a single contract, but don’t use the exact same term, that means the contract intended those terms to be different. Here, they refer to both “any authorised version” and “any version” as two separate entities - which strictly means that the contract anticipates a situation where there is an authorised version, but there are also unauthorised versions, with the authorised version providing certain rights from “any version” even if not authorised.
As I said, it is poorly written. It is one of those things lawyers and judges would look at and groan, but realise several centuries of law states they have to treat the terms differently, and then fight over what the process is for changing what is or is not authorised, and how an “authorised version” becomes merely an “any version”. Laypeople, on the other hand, would not even notice in the first place. It frankly speaks to the reasons folks tend to hate lawyers - a single word being present or not can have drastic repercussions on how the contractual language must be read. Combined with their failure to define either “authorised version” or “any version” in the definition paragraphs or elsewhere and you have some truly unacceptable legal writing.
The document is searchable. By all means, copy the line that says Wizards may "deauthorize."
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
9a. Wizards may update the license. 9b. YOU may use ANY authorized version of this license.
Says literally the opposite of what you think it says. And "clearly" does not contain the word "de-authorize." whoops.
The document is searchable. By all means, copy the line that says Wizards may "deauthorize."
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
9a. Wizards may update the license. 9b. YOU may use ANY authorized version of this license.
Says literally the opposite of what you think it says. And "clearly" does not contain the word "de-authorize." whoops.
Sorry bud, you’re reading it in a layperson’s way. As I said, the fact that they reference authorised versions and versions that are not authorised opens the door to “how does one move from “any authorised” to “any but without authorised”.
As I have said a few times, it is poorly written—which should be really plainly apparent. Why you are still fighting for something so clearly written by an inept individual really raises the question of why you would fight for mediocrity rather than specificity. I have my suspicions on why that is a case, given your other posting, of course, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about yourself.
The document is searchable. By all means, copy the line that says Wizards may "deauthorize."
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
9a. Wizards may update the license. 9b. YOU may use ANY authorized version of this license.
Says literally the opposite of what you think it says. And "clearly" does not contain the word "de-authorize." whoops.
Sorry bud, you’re reading it in a layperson’s way. As I said, the fact that they reference authorised versions and versions that are not authorised opens the door to “how does one move from “any authorised” to “any but without authorised”.
As I have said a few times, it is poorly written—which should be really plainly apparent. Why you are still fighting for something so clearly written by an inept individual really raises the question of why you would fight for mediocrity rather than specificity. I have my suspicions on why that is a case, given your other posting, of course, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about yourself.
Now you're shifting the goalposts. You said that it CLEARLY STATED that the OGL could be Deathorized. You lied, were caught lying, and are changing the terms of the argument. Ambiguity in a contract favors the licensee, not the licensor. So sure, I could take that position, but wizards can't. They wrote it, and if they had intended for there to be a method to terminate the license, they should have included it.
You know "In lawyer land."
P.S. I can call people who disagree with me racists too. It's called ad hominem and it's not very nice and it says more about you that you think that way than it says that about me because I had the audacity to argue with you. Either you're cloaking yourself in racism deliberately, or you actually just think that way. Just sayin.
And that is not even to mention the hypocrisy of saying that racists should have the “freedom” to
Should? What I said is you live in a free country and it's an OPEN LICENSE. Neither of those statements touch on the morality of contract law. Feel free to move, or offer an additional, more restrictive license with more mutually favorable terms.
It has been pointed out repeatedly, that it doesn't say "Irrevocable" anywhere in OGL1.0a. That is a legal definition. Also understand that all licensing agreements end after like 35years, no matter what, if they are not renewed. The OGL 1.0a had to be refreshed either now, or in about 10 years, and issues that are relevant now, did not even exist 20 years ago when it was created. Every contract needs to be reviewed and updated to match the times, and times have changed, drastically. Lets talks modificatoins and terminations:
"7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION (a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision. (b) Termination (i) We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f). (ii) We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach."
That's it. Modification is to what attributions are required in your printed material and how you use attributions, yep. Attributions always change over time. They can change how notifications work because well, notifications processes change over the year and this gives them flexibility to develop new systems.
Termination happens if you infringe on their IP.. duh. Try to sue them to own any part of their IP.. again duh.. break the law.. duh, And violations of 6f "Hateful" content. Yes, they have sole right to determine what is "Hateful". In the end, they are the stewards of their IP, and they get to decide what is "hateful" based on their IP. It's like saying.. "This is our house, we get to decide what is inappropriate in our house. Don't like it, there is the door". Not sure why that is controversial.
As to revoking 1.0a. They are saying that OGL1.0a no longer applies to new content. IT makes sense that you can't have two contradictory licenses on the market at the same time. It is just not legally responsible or possible to maintain. "OH I published this under 1.0a.. so Nyah!" No corporation could ever manage that. So saying "1.0a" does not apply to OneD&D and 5e content, is reasonable thing to do. They have moved mechanics out of their hands, so you can create whatever game you want using those mechanics, but you can't use D&D properties without using the OGL. What are D&D Properties? Names, settings, some very specific monsters, etc. If you create a setting that doesn't use any WotC properties, but just use the SRD, then likely they don't have anything they can do. Gygax got in trouble because he went out of his way to create connections back to the Original TSR, which is a WotC property now.
Question: When D&D said "Race" was going away in favor of "Species" did you support or oppose that? I ask because it is relevant to your current motivations on slagging WotC. I don't trust any company completely, but WotC has been moving in a positive direction on social issues for the last couple years, and it baffles me that people are suddenly thinking they'll reverse that.
Also understand that all licensing agreements end after like 35years, no matter what, if they are not renewed.
Generally speaking, that clock starts over every time you release a new SRD. 5.1 wasn't that long ago. Even if wizards stopped using 1.0a tomorrow, it's not running out for a while.
It has been pointed out repeatedly, that it doesn't say "Irrevocable" anywhere in OGL1.0a.
And I'll say it again. IF there is ambiguity, then the ambiguity favors the person who did not write the contract. Is there a clause that specifically lays out WotC's ability to revoke the contract at any moment? No, of course not. That would defeat the purpose. At best, you're talking about what is basically a honey trap, which is highly unethical and is almost guaranteed to be tossed out if anyone takes it to court... But that's not even the point, because this is a MORAL issue, and even if it is a totally legitimate honey trap that isn't simply voidable, I still have the right to be annoyed that wizards would do it.
The thread is about wizards INTENTIONS, and their intentions are malicious, no matter how you slice it. You know how I know? Because they tried to deathorize 1.0a. Period. That's it. All they had to do was follow what their OWN AGREEMENT TOLD THEM TO DO and release 1.2. People would use it or not. It would sunset, as you say, eventually. 10 years or 25. Whatever. That's not what they did though, is it?
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
As to revoking 1.0a. They are saying that OGL1.0a no longer applies to new content.
Nope. They're trying to apply it to the SRDs 3-5.1 which was originally distributed under 1.0a. Making it only apply to NEW content is exactly and precisely what they should have done, but they did not.
As to revoking 1.0a. They are saying that OGL1.0a no longer applies to new content. IT makes sense that you can't have two contradictory licenses on the market at the same time. It is just not legally responsible or possible to maintain. "OH I published this under 1.0a.. so Nyah!"
Well it's a choice. They don't have to "maintain" anything. You still have to specify which license you are using, and as I said, it's more than fair to keep the open stuff seperate from the new stuff. Alternatively, just offer better terms. The D&D logo is a great first step. Access to the beyond marketplace. Who knows. Make it worth their while and they'll switch... or they won't and it won't matter unless, and again, this is a theme, but unless you're actively being malicious. In that case, then yeah, people will swap back to the old agreement, and that would be a headache, but one entirely of their own making.
Question: When D&D said "Race" was going away in favor of "Species" did you support or oppose that? I ask because it is relevant to your current motivations on slagging WotC. I don't trust any company completely, but WotC has been moving in a positive direction on social issues for the last couple years, and it baffles me that people are suddenly thinking they'll reverse that.
Don't know, was more or less neutral towards it. I think mechanically, having half elves as a variant "sub species?" and putting them in the same basket with rock gnomes and wind-flavored genasi makes a lot of sense, but frankly I'm agnostic. It's their system. They can do literally anything they want with it... Other than give it away, wait for people to collectively invest millions of dollars into it, and then yank it back like Lucy with her (?) football... which is what happened. My entire stance on pretty much everything wizards does or could do with/to DNDNext. Why? Because I run my own game and my own world that is only barely tangentially related to anything they do. We use the same spell lists and some of the random loot tables and things. Thats about it. Monsters, gods, places and people are all either mine, or someone elses published under 1.0a. Still, I own about a dozen of their books, and I'm not alone. One of the players at my weekly table is 10, and my content is moderated accordingly.
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
Of course they are leaving things open to update.
Nope. They're trying to apply it to the SRDs 3-5.1 which was originally distributed under 1.0a. Making it only apply to NEW content is exactly and precisely what they should have done, but they did not.
How is that different from what I said? if you want to use WotC IP in NEW content, then you use OGL 1.2 If you want to use SRD without any WotC IP, then you do you.
SRD use is not covered by the OGL, it's covered by the CCL. Which WotC doesn't control.
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
2.LICENSE.In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content orOur Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
Meaning that, though they can't pull the SRD out of the license, they can terminate it at any time. Poof. Gone. There is no license, we didn't revoke anything! Which is literally the position we're in now. Now we need to include the term interminable. Does terminating the agreement qualify as "modifying it?" Who's to say? As was so eloquently stated above, the door has been "left open in lawyerland" Glad I don't live there. Lawyer land must suck.
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
Of course they are leaving things open to update.
Nope. They're trying to apply it to the SRDs 3-5.1 which was originally distributed under 1.0a. Making it only apply to NEW content is exactly and precisely what they should have done, but they did not.
How is that different from what I said? if you want to use WotC IP in NEW content, then you use OGL 1.2 If you want to use SRD without any WotC IP, then you do you.
SRD use is not covered by the OGL, it's covered by the CCL. Which WotC doesn't control.
If a 3PP wished to support 3.x under 1.0a they can. If they want to support 5e, under 1.0a they can. If they want to support OneDND then they must abide by the terms of the "new" OGL/CCL. However, WotC has no ability to restrict 3PP use of previous versions, outside of the method of making OneDND and/or a "new" OGL/CCL so much superior to what was available previously.
They can have multiple Authorized versions. They have no ability to deauthorize ANY version as they did not specifically reserve that right, and it is on record, both in the form of FAQ's as well as the people who ACTUALLY DRAFTED the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a. The INTENT of the OGL 1.0a is very clear, with no disambiguated intent in any legal sense, because the SOURCE material and persons are not only available, but are on the public record stating it.
So the OGL 1.0a is not under CCL, it is an independent entity as is the SRD tied to it. If a 3PP does not wish to use the OneDND OGL/CCL "updates" WotC/Hasbro has no legal recourse. If a 3PP wants to ride the OneDND coattails and put out content using the OneDND OGL/CCL then they cannot produce any content under any other OGL/ORC.
So WotC must feel very confident that OneDND will be the "bees knees" and be so superior to every other version/option that the masses will convert en masse and leave no practical choice for any 3PP, but to convert to the new OGL/CCL. If it is not, then 3PP's can continue to use OGL 1.0a and produce content under its umbrella, as long as they do not use the newly authorized OneDND OGL/CCL. The language clearly states that MULTIPLE authorized versions can coexist, just like it clearly states that the version may be updated, but 3PP do not have to update as well if it is not in their own best interest.
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
2.LICENSE.In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content orOur Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
Meaning that, though they can't pull the SRD out of the license, they can terminate it at any time. Poof. Gone. There is no license, we didn't revoke anything! Which is literally the position we're in now. Now we need to include the term interminable.
Where do you get they can terminate at any time? Those are legal terms. "This Licesnse" means the document we are talkign about, not any other agreement WotC may have with any other vendor. That's a legal requirement to ensure someone doesn't try and claim the OGL now applies to their own license. "Irrevocable" means it can't be removed. It is one of the arguments against 1.0a. Courts have already rules that perpetual doesn't mean "can't be ended". Only "Irrevocable" means that. And it can only be modified in very specific ways from the Termination and Modifcation sections. How are you getting they can Terminate at will? Honestly, I don't get that interpretation except in the absolutely most non comprehensible reading. The termination section is on a case by case basis, and not the whole thing, barring some ruling or law that makes the enforcement of the OGL impossible.
The full OGL makes it clear that the SRD is now covered by CCL and the only thing this document does is set down the use of WotC IP and what is allowable.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
We don't need another OGL thread, so here is one anyway. I try to keep it brief and to the point to get this out and done with.
An abridged history of the past few weeks: The leaked, NDA'd, "draft" (lawyer use: "everything is a draft until signed") was dastardly. Truly, some cut-throat corporate power play dastardly. I genuinely thought it was a joke at first. The DND brand seems to have been so misunderstood in relation to the DND product. The first WOTC response was more of the same - seems to be a genuine misunderstanding of who the audience was. Although the "we are not idiots, WOTC" responses are certainly valid, there is also a degree of "this cannot be real, right?; "Are they seriously talking to the adults in the room?"
Second response was better; third response was better; new OGL draft better maybe?
Much discussion ensues, people trying to understand a legal document, discern tea leaves of what is the intention, lawyers (Lawyers!?!) commenting on it, sides and battlelines being drawn as fingers being pointed. World famous newspapers commenting, stock prices being monitored (-4% at time of writing BTW), forums being checked first and last thing in the day, youtube being checked for latest.
All this work to understand wtf is going on to play a game of make believe, for goodness sake. Then I realize that for me, the player and the DM, this is an awful lot of work to play said game of make believe. I used to get psyched when I got the official character sheets on that awesome thick tan/orange paper that had AC inside a shield and THACO next to it. Our DM, Paul the kid who lived two doors over in the cul-de-sac, would walk over with some graph paper and dice. I saved up my money for Ral Partha minis from Hobbies Emporium (thanks Reno, NV). Read Dragonlance because it was on the check out counter and I totally dug the picture of Tanis Half Elven on it. Good memories to be honest and simple ones too. Wasn't that hard.
So much work today with WOTC as I try to figure out what the actual hell is going on, as the first attempt at changing the OGL was dastardly, some real evil corporate power play. My opinion anyway.
Meanwhile, the competition basically Paladin's the crap out of the entire thing by saying "Nah, here is the right thing to do. Nobody asked us to do it. All are welcome to do it with us and we've got the tab covered."
Far less work. It just pragmatic at this point. Jesus, the drama burnses and the work is exhausting.
Edit - misspelling in the title. I have a PhD. Doh.
I'm not having trouble discerning Wizards motives.
They want the right to terminate anyone's license with 30 days notice and sue if you don't IMMEDIATELY stop publishing and recall your unsold stock, without recourse, so that they can kill anyone who gets too big or otherwise threatens their pocketbook. They want other rights, like, total immunity from lawsuits in any form from "partners." I'm sure there's a Christmas wish-list somewhere.
And they want the right to prevent VTTs from pretending to be adobe reader (a platform, content agnostic) when people use "unofficial" sources that wizards can't be bothered to shut down themselves, because the VTTs are the actual target. Wizards either wants to cripple them, or get them under their thumb, and the new OGL is what gets them there.
Oh, and they want to release digital only products of some kind, hide it behind a subscription model instead of a publishers model and turn DND into the next marvel, which nobody will accept unless they can kill 5e DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, and since 5.5 is 5e compatible, that won't work so long as 1.0a exists so that has to die too, otherwise people will just keep publishing stuff compatible with SRD 5.1 and people will keep buying/using/playing that. Can't have DNDNext without killing DNDLast. They will be DNDOne.
And finally, they want to put the 3rd party community "In their place." and make sure everybody knows that they aren't authors, they are parasites. WotC is top dog, you are unpaid, freelance, hired help. You work at their pleasure. You might own the rights to YOUR WORK, but they have the final say on anything you write. "Partners?" "Collegues?" "Competitors?"
Did I miss something? Do I win a prize?
Nah, that's just the foot in the door excuse. "We can't let them continue because it's harmful to our brand" is a catch-all excuse. If you read the fine print, they can interpret "harmful to the brand" to mean basically anything. The hatespeech stuff is just red meat. It's not even aimed at us, it's aimed at the not-really-involved
walking pocketbooksparents who buy TTRPG materials for their kids to play with (without them). Hasbro is a family friendly company, they'll say. Only the most honest and fourthrite murderhobos will take up the call, they'll say. We are stewards of the brand! We are shining knights! Join us. For FAERUN! They'll say.Hmm. Guess this thread was necessary afterall.
How would some hypothetical game, let's call it goblins and monkeys, cause harm to the DND brand? They aren't even associated. WotC OWNS DND and they can (and will) shut anyone hard if they even breath in the direction of ACTUAL IP that they could conceivably win a court case over (eg, not open-sourced SRD material)... This is true, regardless of the content of OGL. That's why they have their wizard's approved d20 badges with stricter rules that let people claim a greater (but still removed) level of affiliation with WotC's ethos.
Or do you mean, like a group of people got together to play actual DND on youtube or something, and added in a bunch of rules about (no need to be explicit here, I suppose. Imaginations people!) Because that has nothing to do with the OGL. You can't stop people from burning bibles. WotC has no more right to control what fans do with their actual property and their time than anyone else concerned about their "brand image." Toyota can't stop people from driving drunk by stealing your car if you get a DUI, Subway couldn't steal Jared's 8x pair of giant pants when he got caught being a creep. That is well and truly beyond the scope of this conversation... but since you went there (or I did?) let's imagine an alternate reality where the actual target of the OGL changes was not content publishers, but actual hobbyists playing the actual game that they purchased as a fun hobby and a way to blow off steam. Wizards goes around, setting an arbitrary bar for things like "too much profanity in a game," or "too much boom boom." "your fantasy accents are culturally insensitive."
You posit that that's the *real* purpose behind 1.2/2.0? That is a scary thought indeed. Fortunately, I am fairly certain that WotC has little to no interest in policing how I personally run a game of 5e or Next or One or whatever. Please do not disabuse me of my naivety, because I wouldn't take it well, and we're already on very shaky ground with WotC trying to claw-back the 5.1SRD and screw over publishers. I have my own mental health to consider, you understand.
Yeah, I guess my point here is that I no longer want to have to discern motives for an enjoyable activity. I like my fun with less work and way less drama.
So yeah. I'll vote with my wallet in the direction of less drama.
Some corrections: The game in question was created by Ernest Gygax, son of Gary and one of the founders of D&D himself (he was an early player and staff member - Tenser, of Floating Disk fame and an anagram for his name, was his playable character).
Gygax seeks to publish a new version of Star Frontiers - an old TSR game Wizards owns the rights to and which Wizards still sells old PDFs of, so are still using those rights in commerce. Gygax’s stated goal is to make his version of Star Frontiers comport with his and his father’s views on TTRPGs, including some blatant racism (the rules, which are very much not parody but Gygax’s own views, say things like “some races are superior to other, just like in the real world”).
Wizards is suing them for using Wizards’ Star Frontiers trademark and tarnishing the brand of Star Frontiers. It looks like a pretty easy case, and that Wizards should prevail all things considered.
It was not done under OGL 1.0 - but it could have been. Rather than steal very clearly protected intellectual property, Gygax could have made content under 1.0 with the exact same types of statements in it. Under 1.0 - which is not a clearly written document at all - Gygax would have been able to use OGL 1.0 and publish things where he uses certain N-words as the name for one of the playable races, and it would not be super clear whether that was permissible or not under OGL 1.0 or whether a racist could use OGL 1.0 in court to protect themselves from being shut down by Wizards.
This whole affair all but certainly scared the heck out of Wizards’ lawyers - they likely were thinking “we dodged a bullet this time, since Gygax was so foolish as to use something we so clearly have protections on—but imagine what a disaster it would have been if he used this embarrassingly poorly written OGL instead? We got to fix that.”
It is a completely legitimate and completely necessary reason to change the OGL.
And it is more important to have those protections than ever given one of the single biggest benefits creators get from OGL 1.2 - they get the right to put the D&D ampersand on their products (something 1.0 did not). That makes their products clearly identifiable as “you can play this with the game that has the biggest market share” at a glance—a great boon when trying to expand beyond hardcore gamers who look up what books are comparable with what, as now casual players, grandmothers looking for presents, etc. all can quickly see that your book will work for D&D itself.
But when your trademark is on something, you want to make sure it doesn’t get tarnished - after all, you don’t want folks to see the ampersand and question “wait, is this content going to also be racist?” When you are not just giving up copyrights, but also licensing trademark rights, one needs to be more careful—the trademark stands for something and you need to be able to defend what you want it to stand for.
So, you've made my point for me. Wizards owns the IP. They won't let anyone, not even the Gygax estate mess with their IP.
Yes. He could have... but the difference is that that content wouldn't be Star Frontiers. It would have been "Our father's Stars" or "Stars of Gygax" or something else. Something that, again, would have NOTHING TO DO with WotC's intellectual property. ... ... And?
Uhh, what? It's perfectly clear. You might not LIKE what it says, but that's not the same thing.
Oh, no. It's super clear. They. Cannot. Do. That. Gygax is free to reproduce SRD content under 1.0a in ANY context or world or theme that he wishes to, so long as it doesn't infringe on wizards actual IP. Cowboys, gay cowboys, racist gay cowboys. It's a free country and an open license that anyone can use. Even the racists. Again, though, who cares? Why is it WotC responsibility to shut down Gygax and his "Stars of our fathers" RPG? Because they own the concept of rolling dice and battling monsters? No. They do not.
If he uses their (Wizards-owned) Worlds, People, Artwork, Gods, logos, trade dress, lore, history or unique McGuffins, those things belong to Wizards and are not included in the SRD which was literally created for and exists only for that exact purpose, copyright law kicks in and the legal/Open License bits become irrelevant.
Could have easily been an entirely different license that one could opt into. I absolutely agree with you, in that case, WotC would have a vested interest in standardizing a collective ethos, if that's what they wanted to do. That being said, just because Wizards is smashing two disconnected ideas together like a toddler playing barbie and GI joe, that does not inherently mean they are related.
Again, Trademark is outside of this discussion. D&D owns all their trademarks and can do with them what they want. No D&D trademarks are included in ANY version of ANY OGL or SRD materials and are completely outside the scope of any discussion on the topic of a new OGL. The two concepts are, in fact, entirely incompatible. Open is Open.
1.0 is not a clearly written document in the slightest - a first year low student should be embarrassed to have written it. Just for one example, t has critical terms that are not defined in the terminology provision, including what an “authorised version” constitutes, which is part of the reason there is such confusion about what Wizards did or did not actually promise. The document also clearly indicates they can deauthorise if, but do not really set forth what that means or how that could come about.
And you are straight up wrong that trademark does not apply to 1.2. It is on the first substantive page of the document that content released under 1.2 can use a Wizards’ trademark. There are literally illustrations—one in colour—showing what parts of Wizards’ trademark you can display on your 1.2 content. It is neigh impossible to miss.
And that is not even to mention the hypocrisy of saying that racists should have the “freedom” to leech off of Wizards’ brand, while denying that Wizards, as the owner of the actual intellectual property, has the more fundamental freedom to exercise their free speech in deciding how their own property is used.
Ignoring something prevalently placed and ignoring one entity’s greater rights, all to defend the right to publish racism while using someone else’s name? Not a great look.
Let me ask you this (and I understand this isn't a legal opinion or anything): If I create Raizo Inc. and publish Guidefinder which is basically 5.5e (similar to what Pathfinder did with 3.5 -> 3.75) and it's perfectly fine in re section 6f and Wizards does nothing. Then it gets big similar to Pathfinder. Now I create an adventure path that is horror themed and it has some things that some people might find objectionable (I won't get into detail for obvious reasons though I understand that may effect the answer).
Wizards decides to revoke the license under 6(f). Does that apply to just this adventure path or to Raizo Inc's use of the license meaning all Guidefinder content now longer can't be published under OGL 1.2?
Edit: fixing grammar
https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Open_Game_License_v1.0a
The document is searchable. By all means, copy the line that says Wizards may "deauthorize."
Should? What I said is you live in a free country and it's an OPEN LICENSE. Neither of those statements touch on the morality of contract law. Feel free to move, or offer an additional, more restrictive license with more mutually favorable terms. That's both legal, and good business. Some people might even go so far as to say it was common sense.
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.
In lawyer land, when you use two similar terms in a single contract, but don’t use the exact same term, that means the contract intended those terms to be different. Here, they refer to both “any authorised version” and “any version” as two separate entities - which strictly means that the contract anticipates a situation where there is an authorised version, but there are also unauthorised versions, with the authorised version providing certain rights from “any version” even if not authorised.
As I said, it is poorly written. It is one of those things lawyers and judges would look at and groan, but realise several centuries of law states they have to treat the terms differently, and then fight over what the process is for changing what is or is not authorised, and how an “authorised version” becomes merely an “any version”. Laypeople, on the other hand, would not even notice in the first place. It frankly speaks to the reasons folks tend to hate lawyers - a single word being present or not can have drastic repercussions on how the contractual language must be read. Combined with their failure to define either “authorised version” or “any version” in the definition paragraphs or elsewhere and you have some truly unacceptable legal writing.
9a. Wizards may update the license.
9b. YOU may use ANY authorized version of this license.
Says literally the opposite of what you think it says. And "clearly" does not contain the word "de-authorize." whoops.
Sorry bud, you’re reading it in a layperson’s way. As I said, the fact that they reference authorised versions and versions that are not authorised opens the door to “how does one move from “any authorised” to “any but without authorised”.
As I have said a few times, it is poorly written—which should be really plainly apparent. Why you are still fighting for something so clearly written by an inept individual really raises the question of why you would fight for mediocrity rather than specificity. I have my suspicions on why that is a case, given your other posting, of course, but I’ll let you draw your own conclusions about yourself.
Now you're shifting the goalposts. You said that it CLEARLY STATED that the OGL could be Deathorized. You lied, were caught lying, and are changing the terms of the argument.
Ambiguity in a contract favors the licensee, not the licensor. So sure, I could take that position, but wizards can't. They wrote it, and if they had intended for there to be a method to terminate the license, they should have included it.
You know "In lawyer land."
P.S. I can call people who disagree with me racists too. It's called ad hominem and it's not very nice and it says more about you that you think that way than it says that about me because I had the audacity to argue with you. Either you're cloaking yourself in racism deliberately, or you actually just think that way. Just sayin.
It has been pointed out repeatedly, that it doesn't say "Irrevocable" anywhere in OGL1.0a. That is a legal definition. Also understand that all licensing agreements end after like 35years, no matter what, if they are not renewed. The OGL 1.0a had to be refreshed either now, or in about 10 years, and issues that are relevant now, did not even exist 20 years ago when it was created. Every contract needs to be reviewed and updated to match the times, and times have changed, drastically. Lets talks modificatoins and terminations:
"7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.
(b) Termination
(i) We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f).
(ii) We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach."
That's it. Modification is to what attributions are required in your printed material and how you use attributions, yep. Attributions always change over time. They can change how notifications work because well, notifications processes change over the year and this gives them flexibility to develop new systems.
Termination happens if you infringe on their IP.. duh. Try to sue them to own any part of their IP.. again duh.. break the law.. duh, And violations of 6f "Hateful" content. Yes, they have sole right to determine what is "Hateful". In the end, they are the stewards of their IP, and they get to decide what is "hateful" based on their IP. It's like saying.. "This is our house, we get to decide what is inappropriate in our house. Don't like it, there is the door". Not sure why that is controversial.
As to revoking 1.0a. They are saying that OGL1.0a no longer applies to new content. IT makes sense that you can't have two contradictory licenses on the market at the same time. It is just not legally responsible or possible to maintain. "OH I published this under 1.0a.. so Nyah!" No corporation could ever manage that. So saying "1.0a" does not apply to OneD&D and 5e content, is reasonable thing to do. They have moved mechanics out of their hands, so you can create whatever game you want using those mechanics, but you can't use D&D properties without using the OGL. What are D&D Properties? Names, settings, some very specific monsters, etc. If you create a setting that doesn't use any WotC properties, but just use the SRD, then likely they don't have anything they can do. Gygax got in trouble because he went out of his way to create connections back to the Original TSR, which is a WotC property now.
Question: When D&D said "Race" was going away in favor of "Species" did you support or oppose that? I ask because it is relevant to your current motivations on slagging WotC. I don't trust any company completely, but WotC has been moving in a positive direction on social issues for the last couple years, and it baffles me that people are suddenly thinking they'll reverse that.
Generally speaking, that clock starts over every time you release a new SRD. 5.1 wasn't that long ago. Even if wizards stopped using 1.0a tomorrow, it's not running out for a while.
And I'll say it again. IF there is ambiguity, then the ambiguity favors the person who did not write the contract. Is there a clause that specifically lays out WotC's ability to revoke the contract at any moment? No, of course not. That would defeat the purpose. At best, you're talking about what is basically a honey trap, which is highly unethical and is almost guaranteed to be tossed out if anyone takes it to court...
But that's not even the point, because this is a MORAL issue, and even if it is a totally legitimate honey trap that isn't simply voidable, I still have the right to be annoyed that wizards would do it.
The thread is about wizards INTENTIONS, and their intentions are malicious, no matter how you slice it. You know how I know? Because they tried to deathorize 1.0a. Period. That's it. All they had to do was follow what their OWN AGREEMENT TOLD THEM TO DO and release 1.2. People would use it or not. It would sunset, as you say, eventually. 10 years or 25. Whatever. That's not what they did though, is it?
Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing.
So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Nope. They're trying to apply it to the SRDs 3-5.1 which was originally distributed under 1.0a.
Making it only apply to NEW content is exactly and precisely what they should have done, but they did not.
Well it's a choice. They don't have to "maintain" anything. You still have to specify which license you are using, and as I said, it's more than fair to keep the open stuff seperate from the new stuff. Alternatively, just offer better terms. The D&D logo is a great first step. Access to the beyond marketplace. Who knows. Make it worth their while and they'll switch... or they won't and it won't matter unless, and again, this is a theme, but unless you're actively being malicious. In that case, then yeah, people will swap back to the old agreement, and that would be a headache, but one entirely of their own making.
Don't know, was more or less neutral towards it. I think mechanically, having half elves as a variant "sub species?" and putting them in the same basket with rock gnomes and wind-flavored genasi makes a lot of sense, but frankly I'm agnostic. It's their system. They can do literally anything they want with it... Other than give it away, wait for people to collectively invest millions of dollars into it, and then yank it back like Lucy with her (?) football... which is what happened. My entire stance on pretty much everything wizards does or could do with/to DNDNext. Why? Because I run my own game and my own world that is only barely tangentially related to anything they do. We use the same spell lists and some of the random loot tables and things. Thats about it. Monsters, gods, places and people are all either mine, or someone elses published under 1.0a. Still, I own about a dozen of their books, and I'm not alone. One of the players at my weekly table is 10, and my content is moderated accordingly.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
Of course they are leaving things open to update.
How is that different from what I said? if you want to use WotC IP in NEW content, then you use OGL 1.2 If you want to use SRD without any WotC IP, then you do you.
SRD use is not covered by the OGL, it's covered by the CCL. Which WotC doesn't control.
2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
Meaning that, though they can't pull the SRD out of the license, they can terminate it at any time. Poof. Gone. There is no license, we didn't revoke anything! Which is literally the position we're in now. Now we need to include the term interminable. Does terminating the agreement qualify as "modifying it?" Who's to say? As was so eloquently stated above, the door has been "left open in lawyerland" Glad I don't live there. Lawyer land must suck.
If a 3PP wished to support 3.x under 1.0a they can. If they want to support 5e, under 1.0a they can. If they want to support OneDND then they must abide by the terms of the "new" OGL/CCL. However, WotC has no ability to restrict 3PP use of previous versions, outside of the method of making OneDND and/or a "new" OGL/CCL so much superior to what was available previously.
They can have multiple Authorized versions. They have no ability to deauthorize ANY version as they did not specifically reserve that right, and it is on record, both in the form of FAQ's as well as the people who ACTUALLY DRAFTED the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a. The INTENT of the OGL 1.0a is very clear, with no disambiguated intent in any legal sense, because the SOURCE material and persons are not only available, but are on the public record stating it.
So the OGL 1.0a is not under CCL, it is an independent entity as is the SRD tied to it. If a 3PP does not wish to use the OneDND OGL/CCL "updates" WotC/Hasbro has no legal recourse. If a 3PP wants to ride the OneDND coattails and put out content using the OneDND OGL/CCL then they cannot produce any content under any other OGL/ORC.
So WotC must feel very confident that OneDND will be the "bees knees" and be so superior to every other version/option that the masses will convert en masse and leave no practical choice for any 3PP, but to convert to the new OGL/CCL. If it is not, then 3PP's can continue to use OGL 1.0a and produce content under its umbrella, as long as they do not use the newly authorized OneDND OGL/CCL. The language clearly states that MULTIPLE authorized versions can coexist, just like it clearly states that the version may be updated, but 3PP do not have to update as well if it is not in their own best interest.
Where do you get they can terminate at any time? Those are legal terms. "This Licesnse" means the document we are talkign about, not any other agreement WotC may have with any other vendor. That's a legal requirement to ensure someone doesn't try and claim the OGL now applies to their own license. "Irrevocable" means it can't be removed. It is one of the arguments against 1.0a. Courts have already rules that perpetual doesn't mean "can't be ended". Only "Irrevocable" means that. And it can only be modified in very specific ways from the Termination and Modifcation sections. How are you getting they can Terminate at will? Honestly, I don't get that interpretation except in the absolutely most non comprehensible reading. The termination section is on a case by case basis, and not the whole thing, barring some ruling or law that makes the enforcement of the OGL impossible.
The full OGL makes it clear that the SRD is now covered by CCL and the only thing this document does is set down the use of WotC IP and what is allowable.