In case you missed the big thing on the front page, then HERE are the newest pieces of information on the OGL situation, as well as a couple of other random things. It answers questions and helps put an end to some rumors that circulated for a bit, before Wizards responded on Twitter and now DDB.
The fact that many of the questions in the FAQ are ones we've seen people frequently concerned about here on the forums helps go to show that Wizards is listening to our needs. If anyone from the company is reading this, then I just wanted to say thank you for transparency, you have gained back a lot of trust (in my mind at least).
That being said, I bet you there will be a billion people trying to twist this statement in order to complain about it. 3... 2... 1.... Let the panic and wild rampaging begin!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
But they haven't denied that they'll be suing us if we use our own characters in our own worlds with no reference to D&D. They must be plotting!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
In case you missed the big thing on the front page, then HERE are the newest pieces of information on the OGL situation, as well as a couple of other random things. It answers questions and helps put an end to some rumors that circulated for a bit, before Wizards responded on Twitter and now DDB.
The fact that many of the questions in the FAQ are ones we've seen people frequently concerned about here on the forums helps go to show that Wizards is listening to our needs. If anyone from the company is reading this, then I just wanted to say thank you for transparency, you have gained back a lot of trust (in my mind at least).
That being said, I bet you there will be a billion people trying to twist this statement in order to complain about it. 3... 2... 1.... Let the panic and wild rampaging begin!
We will see. I think that Wizards of the Coast and DnDBeyond have a lot less control over the situation than they think they do. It will be up to Hasbro to decide the new business model, nothing is going to happen without Cynthia William's approval and she isn't going to approve anything based on player feedback, she is going to do whatever makes the most money.
That said, as long as they are backing down and submitting to the D&D community's demands, there is at least hope, but I wouldn't wave any victory flags until we see the final version. The boycott and outrage must continue to ensure they have absolutely no choice but to comply, now is not the time to let up, now is the time to squeeze them even further.
Victory is achieved when we have a clear, open-source D&D. When content creators from all walks of the table top community feel free to create content and trust that this deal will not be changed on them, only then can we breath a sigh of relief.
Right now two critical points have not changed which is that Wizards of the Coasts retains the right to claim 3rd party content that has been created. The current way this is defined is that if they steal your stuff, you have no right to it, rather you have a right to sue them for compensation and must prove without a shadow of a doubt that they knowingly stole it from you. This would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of people to do, I mean, I'm not going to sue Wizards of the Coast with any hope of winning in a court of law. We can steal it and you can sue us is the default state of things, you don't need an OGL for this to be true, its always been true, but if you sign the OGL, even if you win, you don't own your content, you might get compensation for it.
Secondly that they can change the OGL however and whenever they wish. This is still a major vulnerability in the OGL that I think most content creators consider to be sufficient reason to move their creations to another system. "pray we don't alter the deal any further" is still on the table. We will see how Wizards of the Coasts addresses these points.
I always try to give a second chance. And I prefer to think positively than negatively. Now my trust in WoTC is badly damaged. What they tried to do in the first place was abusive, and very damaging to the D&D ecosystem. But especially it was abusive to the point of illegality. In recent days, however, they are taking steps in the right direction. They keep trying to put abusive clauses in 1.2. But we will see if the best agreement for everyone is achieved with the feedback.
I highlight from this statement that they announce that in the next draft we will see what happens with SRD 3.5 (and other previous editions). If they include SRD 3.0 and 3.5 in CC, it will be a big step towards keeping OGL1.0a without keeping it. Free access to the SRD was the main reason for creating the OGL, as it allowed you to create content for 3e without fear of legal retaliation (something that was a nightmare in the last days of TSR). But SRD 3.5 must be complete in CC, what they have done with 5.1 does not work (it works for 5.1, but not for 3.5 since then they would not respect the OGL 1.0a agreement).
Would WOTC be able to answer a few more questions, just so I’m crystal clear on how the new OGL works?
Question 1. How is WOTC lawfully permitted under the terms of OGL1.0(a) to revoke or “de-authorise” the licence?
OGL1.0(a) was created by WOTC 20 years ago as an open source licence. Open source licences, used not just for RPGs but also extensively for software, cannot be revoked and material released under those licences is free use forever (no fee or permission required) provided users follow the terms of the licence. Indeed, at the time the OGL was released, WOTC made well documented public statements that the licence wouldn’t be revoked and content released under OGL1.0(a) would always be useable under that licence even if a new licence was released (as happened, eg with GSL for 4e).
WOTC seem to be saying they can revoke the licence in two ways. First, because OGL1.0(a) doesn't say it's "irrevocable"; Second, OGL1.0(a) says WOTC can release updated versions of the OGL, and creators can only use authorised versions; WOTC are now saying they are releasing an update, OGL1.2, and deauthorising OGL1.0(a), and so now creators have to use OGL1.2 because that's the only authorised version left to use.
But here’s what I don’t get.
“Irrevocable”. I don’t understand why WOTC is allowed to revoke the OGL just because the OGL doesn’t explicitly say WOTC can’t revoke it, ie doesn’t include the magic word “irrevocable”. A person cannot terminate a contract at will just because the contract doesn’t say “parties cannot unilaterally terminate this agreement” - why is WOTC allowed to do something as drastic as revoking a 20+ year licence not by using an express right to revoke it but instead because the licence doesn’t go out of its way to say they can’t?
Licences do often say "irrevocable" if the parties want the agreement to be irrevocable. But isn’t that just to avoid ambiguity? Here, OGL1.0(a) was explicitly drafted as an open source agreement intended to remain open forever. WOTC even represented that's what it did at the time. Shouldn’t WOTC be able to point to something that actually says they can revoke the licence?
And here’s the rub. OGL1.0(a) clause 13 actually does say WOTC can terminate the licence - but only for breach. It seems nonsensical to me that the authors of the licence expressly gave WOTC the power to terminate the licence for breach but also gave WOTC an unwritten - and until now no one even realised they had it - power to effectively terminate for any reason at all or even for no reason. Surely, if WOTC had the power to revoke the licence for reasons other than beach then the licence would actually say that?
“de-authorisation”. It’s correct OGL1.0(a) says WOTC can release updated versions of the OGL and you can only used authorised versions. But here's the thing. OGL1.0(a) doesn't actually say WOTC have the power to deauthorise the licence. It's the same point as above - WOTC are saying because the licence doesn't says they can't do a thing, then that means they can. Even though that's not how contracts work, that's not how open source licences work, and WOTC have literally represented the opposite for the past 20 years.
OGL1.0(a) clause 9 says WOTC can release an updated licence. OK, WOTC are doing that with OGL1.2 - great, no problem. OGL1.0(a) then says you can use any *authorised* version of the OGL. Got it. WOTC authorised OGL1.0(a) 20 years ago, so I’ll use that. WOTC say OGL1.0(a) is deauthorised - but there’s no express power to do that, and OGL1.0(a) only says I can use any authorised version of the licence not “currently authorised” or “authorised by WOTC from time to time”.
Indeed, at the time the OGL was released, WOTC stated publicly that if an updated licence was released then the OGL allowed creators to either move to the new licence or stick to the previous authorised licence. Given the above, isn’t what WOTC said at the time it released OGL1.0(a) actually how the licence works? ie WOTC can release updated licences but creators are free to stick with prior licences which WOTC has no power to “deauthorise”?
Question 2. How does WOTC reconcile its current position that it can deauthorise OGL1.0(a) with its prior statements when the OGL was released?
WOTC publicly released a FAQ when it first released the OGL. In that FAQ, WOTC represented the OGL was irrevocable and creators would always be able to rely on OGL1.0(a). WOTC also represented creators could use OGL content for video games and digital products.
Creators have relied on these representations to built business and hire employees and create fanbases, all trusting on what WOTC has said for the past 20+years.
WOTC say that content already released under 1.0(a) can still be published - but creators had been told not only could they publish under 1.0(a) but they could also release errata, update content, release supplements and adventures, have other creators under sub-licence build on what they created in addition to SRD content, and even use what they created digitally up to and including video games, all under an open source OGL1.0(a).
Please help me to understand why it’s OK for WOTC to now go back on these public representations?
Question 3. How can people trust WOTC if you’re revoking an irrevocable licence after 20 years of reliance, claiming you own public or non-copyright content like “elves” “wizards” “magic missle” or “Owlbears”, or asserting a right to police content but have repeatedly published racist content yourself?
WOTC are revoking OGL1.0(a) without, at best, any express right to do so, and at worst without any lawful basis at all, contrary to the open source principles the license was built on, and in breach of public representations that WOTC has not challenged for over 20+ years. WOTC now say the new licence will be expressly irrevocable, but what’s to stop WOTC also simply asserting it can revoke this licence in the future or ignoring these new representations or finding some legal loophole that lets them revoke the licence?
WOTC are releasing basic game content under Creative Commons Attribution licence, meaning players can use content like “roll a d20, add strength, beat 15” or “level” or “sword” but only if they credit WOTC. WOTC aren’t releasing under CC concepts like “elf” “wizard” “magic missile” “Owlbears”. WOTC appears to be claiming it owns all this content, but how is this a good faith assertion?
WOTC doesn’t Trade Mark rolling a d20, or strength, levels, swords, elves, wizard, magic missile or Owlbears. WOTC may own copyright in the text of the SRD up to a point, but surely this is all general or public domain content not capable of being copyright or is itself derivative. WOTC didn’t invent rolling d20 or strength or wizards or elves - it’s nonsense asserting creators need permission to use these terms. WOTC didn’t even invent magic missile (a fantasy war gaming term used since the 1970s) or Owlbears (Gary Gygax based the monster on Japanese monster toys, along with the rust monster and a few others).
In its VTT policy, WOTC even threatens to sue people using magic missile or Owlbears without its permission notwithstanding these are terms and concepts WOTC never created itself. How is that threat not aggressive and or overreach?
WOTC itself uses content clearly created by others such as Halflings (Hobbits) and Orcs from Tolkien, Lawful/Chaos and Paladins from Four Lions and Four Hearts and DnD’s magic system from Vance’s Dying Earth. WOTC even borrowed 5e’s advantage / disadvantage and using attributes for saves, which all first used in WhiteHack and other OSR RPG fantasy games. Why is it ok for WOTC to freely use other creator’s material but WOTC requires everyone else to use their content or just general fantasy terms only with their permission and attribution?
OGL1.2 also grants WOTC extensive powers to police content and other rights and protections (eg freedom from class actions). But WOTC has itself published inappropriate content on many occasions, including racist stereotypes in Curse of Strahd and very recently in Spelljammer. The current Monster Manual even now consistently puts forward “tribal” monsters and variously describes them as savage, backwards, evil and or low intelligence. How can WOTC be trusted to police content in good faith and across changes in WOTC leadership?
WOTC is releasing a new version of DnD, current project name OneDnD. WOTC is of course free to release OneDnD under a new OGL. But WOTC is going beyond that, to retroactively and unilaterally change terms on people that had used and relied on OGL1.0(a) and claim massively increased powers over their content (after only a few weeks ago unilaterally seeking royalties from creators etc). Given WOTC don’t need to do this - they could just make any new OGL apply to OneDnD not legacy content - how can creators be sure WOTC will show restraint and act fairly on future matters?
***
Thanks. Really hope WOTC can take a look at these questions and provide some feedback. I’m really excited about the future of DnD, just want to be clear about where things currently stand and future direction.
In case you missed the big thing on the front page, then HERE are the newest pieces of information on the OGL situation, as well as a couple of other random things. It answers questions and helps put an end to some rumors that circulated for a bit, before Wizards responded on Twitter and now DDB.
The fact that many of the questions in the FAQ are ones we've seen people frequently concerned about here on the forums helps go to show that Wizards is listening to our needs. If anyone from the company is reading this, then I just wanted to say thank you for transparency, you have gained back a lot of trust (in my mind at least).
That being said, I bet you there will be a billion people trying to twist this statement in order to complain about it. 3... 2... 1.... Let the panic and wild rampaging begin!
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.But they haven't denied that they'll be suing us if we use our own characters in our own worlds with no reference to D&D. They must be plotting!
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Linklite, the OGL does not cover your weekly homegame and all your Min/Maxed Characters. It covers published content.
I feel the basic terms provided in OGL 1.2 are a solid start.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It was satirical.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
We will see. I think that Wizards of the Coast and DnDBeyond have a lot less control over the situation than they think they do. It will be up to Hasbro to decide the new business model, nothing is going to happen without Cynthia William's approval and she isn't going to approve anything based on player feedback, she is going to do whatever makes the most money.
That said, as long as they are backing down and submitting to the D&D community's demands, there is at least hope, but I wouldn't wave any victory flags until we see the final version. The boycott and outrage must continue to ensure they have absolutely no choice but to comply, now is not the time to let up, now is the time to squeeze them even further.
Victory is achieved when we have a clear, open-source D&D. When content creators from all walks of the table top community feel free to create content and trust that this deal will not be changed on them, only then can we breath a sigh of relief.
Right now two critical points have not changed which is that Wizards of the Coasts retains the right to claim 3rd party content that has been created. The current way this is defined is that if they steal your stuff, you have no right to it, rather you have a right to sue them for compensation and must prove without a shadow of a doubt that they knowingly stole it from you. This would be impossible for the overwhelming majority of people to do, I mean, I'm not going to sue Wizards of the Coast with any hope of winning in a court of law. We can steal it and you can sue us is the default state of things, you don't need an OGL for this to be true, its always been true, but if you sign the OGL, even if you win, you don't own your content, you might get compensation for it.
Secondly that they can change the OGL however and whenever they wish. This is still a major vulnerability in the OGL that I think most content creators consider to be sufficient reason to move their creations to another system. "pray we don't alter the deal any further" is still on the table. We will see how Wizards of the Coasts addresses these points.
I always try to give a second chance. And I prefer to think positively than negatively.
Now my trust in WoTC is badly damaged. What they tried to do in the first place was abusive, and very damaging to the D&D ecosystem. But especially it was abusive to the point of illegality.
In recent days, however, they are taking steps in the right direction. They keep trying to put abusive clauses in 1.2. But we will see if the best agreement for everyone is achieved with the feedback.
I highlight from this statement that they announce that in the next draft we will see what happens with SRD 3.5 (and other previous editions). If they include SRD 3.0 and 3.5 in CC, it will be a big step towards keeping OGL1.0a without keeping it. Free access to the SRD was the main reason for creating the OGL, as it allowed you to create content for 3e without fear of legal retaliation (something that was a nightmare in the last days of TSR). But SRD 3.5 must be complete in CC, what they have done with 5.1 does not work (it works for 5.1, but not for 3.5 since then they would not respect the OGL 1.0a agreement).
Great FAQ. Clears a lot of things up.
Would WOTC be able to answer a few more questions, just so I’m crystal clear on how the new OGL works?
Question 1. How is WOTC lawfully permitted under the terms of OGL1.0(a) to revoke or “de-authorise” the licence?
OGL1.0(a) was created by WOTC 20 years ago as an open source licence. Open source licences, used not just for RPGs but also extensively for software, cannot be revoked and material released under those licences is free use forever (no fee or permission required) provided users follow the terms of the licence. Indeed, at the time the OGL was released, WOTC made well documented public statements that the licence wouldn’t be revoked and content released under OGL1.0(a) would always be useable under that licence even if a new licence was released (as happened, eg with GSL for 4e).
WOTC seem to be saying they can revoke the licence in two ways. First, because OGL1.0(a) doesn't say it's "irrevocable"; Second, OGL1.0(a) says WOTC can release updated versions of the OGL, and creators can only use authorised versions; WOTC are now saying they are releasing an update, OGL1.2, and deauthorising OGL1.0(a), and so now creators have to use OGL1.2 because that's the only authorised version left to use.
But here’s what I don’t get.
“Irrevocable”. I don’t understand why WOTC is allowed to revoke the OGL just because the OGL doesn’t explicitly say WOTC can’t revoke it, ie doesn’t include the magic word “irrevocable”. A person cannot terminate a contract at will just because the contract doesn’t say “parties cannot unilaterally terminate this agreement” - why is WOTC allowed to do something as drastic as revoking a 20+ year licence not by using an express right to revoke it but instead because the licence doesn’t go out of its way to say they can’t?
Licences do often say "irrevocable" if the parties want the agreement to be irrevocable. But isn’t that just to avoid ambiguity? Here, OGL1.0(a) was explicitly drafted as an open source agreement intended to remain open forever. WOTC even represented that's what it did at the time. Shouldn’t WOTC be able to point to something that actually says they can revoke the licence?
And here’s the rub. OGL1.0(a) clause 13 actually does say WOTC can terminate the licence - but only for breach. It seems nonsensical to me that the authors of the licence expressly gave WOTC the power to terminate the licence for breach but also gave WOTC an unwritten - and until now no one even realised they had it - power to effectively terminate for any reason at all or even for no reason. Surely, if WOTC had the power to revoke the licence for reasons other than beach then the licence would actually say that?
“de-authorisation”. It’s correct OGL1.0(a) says WOTC can release updated versions of the OGL and you can only used authorised versions. But here's the thing. OGL1.0(a) doesn't actually say WOTC have the power to deauthorise the licence. It's the same point as above - WOTC are saying because the licence doesn't says they can't do a thing, then that means they can. Even though that's not how contracts work, that's not how open source licences work, and WOTC have literally represented the opposite for the past 20 years.
OGL1.0(a) clause 9 says WOTC can release an updated licence. OK, WOTC are doing that with OGL1.2 - great, no problem. OGL1.0(a) then says you can use any *authorised* version of the OGL. Got it. WOTC authorised OGL1.0(a) 20 years ago, so I’ll use that. WOTC say OGL1.0(a) is deauthorised - but there’s no express power to do that, and OGL1.0(a) only says I can use any authorised version of the licence not “currently authorised” or “authorised by WOTC from time to time”.
Indeed, at the time the OGL was released, WOTC stated publicly that if an updated licence was released then the OGL allowed creators to either move to the new licence or stick to the previous authorised licence. Given the above, isn’t what WOTC said at the time it released OGL1.0(a) actually how the licence works? ie WOTC can release updated licences but creators are free to stick with prior licences which WOTC has no power to “deauthorise”?
Question 2. How does WOTC reconcile its current position that it can deauthorise OGL1.0(a) with its prior statements when the OGL was released?
WOTC publicly released a FAQ when it first released the OGL. In that FAQ, WOTC represented the OGL was irrevocable and creators would always be able to rely on OGL1.0(a). WOTC also represented creators could use OGL content for video games and digital products.
Creators have relied on these representations to built business and hire employees and create fanbases, all trusting on what WOTC has said for the past 20+years.
WOTC say that content already released under 1.0(a) can still be published - but creators had been told not only could they publish under 1.0(a) but they could also release errata, update content, release supplements and adventures, have other creators under sub-licence build on what they created in addition to SRD content, and even use what they created digitally up to and including video games, all under an open source OGL1.0(a).
Please help me to understand why it’s OK for WOTC to now go back on these public representations?
Question 3. How can people trust WOTC if you’re revoking an irrevocable licence after 20 years of reliance, claiming you own public or non-copyright content like “elves” “wizards” “magic missle” or “Owlbears”, or asserting a right to police content but have repeatedly published racist content yourself?
WOTC are revoking OGL1.0(a) without, at best, any express right to do so, and at worst without any lawful basis at all, contrary to the open source principles the license was built on, and in breach of public representations that WOTC has not challenged for over 20+ years. WOTC now say the new licence will be expressly irrevocable, but what’s to stop WOTC also simply asserting it can revoke this licence in the future or ignoring these new representations or finding some legal loophole that lets them revoke the licence?
WOTC are releasing basic game content under Creative Commons Attribution licence, meaning players can use content like “roll a d20, add strength, beat 15” or “level” or “sword” but only if they credit WOTC. WOTC aren’t releasing under CC concepts like “elf” “wizard” “magic missile” “Owlbears”. WOTC appears to be claiming it owns all this content, but how is this a good faith assertion?
WOTC doesn’t Trade Mark rolling a d20, or strength, levels, swords, elves, wizard, magic missile or Owlbears. WOTC may own copyright in the text of the SRD up to a point, but surely this is all general or public domain content not capable of being copyright or is itself derivative. WOTC didn’t invent rolling d20 or strength or wizards or elves - it’s nonsense asserting creators need permission to use these terms. WOTC didn’t even invent magic missile (a fantasy war gaming term used since the 1970s) or Owlbears (Gary Gygax based the monster on Japanese monster toys, along with the rust monster and a few others).
In its VTT policy, WOTC even threatens to sue people using magic missile or Owlbears without its permission notwithstanding these are terms and concepts WOTC never created itself. How is that threat not aggressive and or overreach?
WOTC itself uses content clearly created by others such as Halflings (Hobbits) and Orcs from Tolkien, Lawful/Chaos and Paladins from Four Lions and Four Hearts and DnD’s magic system from Vance’s Dying Earth. WOTC even borrowed 5e’s advantage / disadvantage and using attributes for saves, which all first used in WhiteHack and other OSR RPG fantasy games. Why is it ok for WOTC to freely use other creator’s material but WOTC requires everyone else to use their content or just general fantasy terms only with their permission and attribution?
OGL1.2 also grants WOTC extensive powers to police content and other rights and protections (eg freedom from class actions). But WOTC has itself published inappropriate content on many occasions, including racist stereotypes in Curse of Strahd and very recently in Spelljammer. The current Monster Manual even now consistently puts forward “tribal” monsters and variously describes them as savage, backwards, evil and or low intelligence. How can WOTC be trusted to police content in good faith and across changes in WOTC leadership?
WOTC is releasing a new version of DnD, current project name OneDnD. WOTC is of course free to release OneDnD under a new OGL. But WOTC is going beyond that, to retroactively and unilaterally change terms on people that had used and relied on OGL1.0(a) and claim massively increased powers over their content (after only a few weeks ago unilaterally seeking royalties from creators etc). Given WOTC don’t need to do this - they could just make any new OGL apply to OneDnD not legacy content - how can creators be sure WOTC will show restraint and act fairly on future matters?
***
Thanks. Really hope WOTC can take a look at these questions and provide some feedback. I’m really excited about the future of DnD, just want to be clear about where things currently stand and future direction.
Let the chaos ensue and swirl into a storm so violet mauhahaha