New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Yaarel]

3) WotC can reserve rights to commercial videogames, software, movies, TV, novels and such. That's fair.
3a) Non-commercial software and media are allowed. Actual play programs are explicitly differentiated from other reserved media, and explicitly allowed.

I take exception to term 3).

As long as the software app, videogame, movie, or TV show stays clear of the "designated Product Identity", then the use of the SRDs is fair game.

Character builder apps that fill out the SRD info, including class stats, spell descriptions, etcetera are fine.

The tv show, Critical Role: The Legend of Vox Machina, is fair use of the SRD. And awesome for the D&D community!

If Hasbro wants to make money from a high quality D&D-theme animation series, then Hasbro can make one. Please do. It looks like they are making a high quality cinema movie. It will make money or not by being a show that gamers want want to see.

If someone writes a novel, referring to SRD content. No problem.

The SRD is for any media.

 

[darjr]

Who other than WotC could grant a license for OneD&D?

They could make an SRD and release it under one of many Creative Commons licenses that already exist.

 

[Yaarel]

Who other than WotC could grant a license for OneD&D?

Almost anybody except Hasbro-WotC, would be more trustworthy.

Maybe crowdsource pro-bono lawyers to publically hash out a new irrevocable legal contract.

Or declare the SRD content public domain.

 

[Umbran]

That way no one need trust WotC.

But then, you have to trust that third party. And woe betide you if WotC eventually buys the third party. And woe betide WotC if some competitor buys the third party.

 

[mamba]

Maybe I am getting soft with age, but I see two ways forward. One new license replacing the current 1.0a with the terms from my original post, or a fork in the road.

The latter would be leaving 1.0a as is and unrevoked. Issuing a 1.0b with the terms of 1.0a plus the little word ‘unrevocable’ and attaching that to all the existing SRDs, so that anyone who wants to migrate to that can (in case they no longer trust WotC with 1.0a). Heck, they can even exclude NFTs and programs (except VTTs) here for all I care.

And finally, they can come along with the OGL 1.1 for the 1DD SRD and get more strict and creative there still. Ask for a share of the profits if the profits (not revenue) exceeds 500k, and have a badge. Be my guest.
It still needs to allow for print, PDF and VTT use however. Compete on the quality of your VTT, not by shutting everyone else down.

 

[darjr]

But then, you have to trust that third party. And woe betide you if WotC eventually buys the third party. And woe betide WotC if some competitor buys the third party.

Unless that third party is the creative commons folks? Or a consortium that then releases the license.

Here's a list of them that nobody owns.

About The Licenses - Creative Commons

The Creative Commons copyright licenses and tools forge a balance inside the traditional “all rights reserved” setting that copyright law creates.

creativecommons.org

 

[Umbran]

They could make an SRD and release it under one of many Creative Commons licenses that already exist.

I think this is a language issue. Granting a license and writing the license are not the same thing.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

Perhaps the copyright to the hypothetical OGL v1.0b could be assigned to the Open Gaming Foundation.

 

[darjr]

I think this is a language issue. Granting a license and writing the license are not the same thing.

I'm not sure what you mean.

WotC's counter offer could be to choose a CC license off that list. Then release an SRD under said license.

They wouldn't own the license and thus couldn't change it. No need to trust them. Sure you'd need to trust that license, but it's one from the Creative Commons folks which I think grants them quite a bit of trust in that license. Note you wouldn't need to trust the CC folks either, just that thier license is sound.

WotC wouldn't have to promise not to change it because they couldn't change it. Even if they wanted to.

 

[Greg Benage]

I know. But for small publishers, profit margins are small. Specifically, if the profit margin per unit is smaller than revenue-royalty percentage, a successful publisher can lose money, as the royalties eat up the profits. The goal of that item was to prevent this possibility.

It feels a little pointless to debate this because it's never gonna happen. Kickstarter isn't interested in 5-8% of your "profits," and Wizards won't be either. Some thoughts in no particular order:

• I'm not sure someone doing $750,000+ on a crowdfunded campaign counts as a "small publisher."
• Granted that I have no experience in the Kickstarter era, I find the 20% prohibitive. I assume no one will be crowdfunding big 1D&D projects unless they cut a side deal with Wizards. I feel like this is probably the intent of the provision.
• If you can do a $750,000 Kickstarter campaign, you can create a budget with allowances for the 20% royalty on sales above $750,000. I created budgets for OGL products with allowances for a 60% distributor discount on the first dollar of sales, and I'd make breakeven on preorders. If I couldn't do that, we didn't do the book. (You might have noticed that FFG would drop the axe on a line at a moment's notice.)
• My concern about small publishers would be more focused on termination/revocation language. The royalty rate for actual small publishers is 0%.