D&D 4E Interesting Article on OGL and 4E

[Lizard]

While the OGL is changed, how did they not continue the OGL into 4e?

Because, uhm, it's NOT THE SAME LICENSE?

They have a free license. This isn't the same as the OGL. Mourn and others keep trying to pretend "OGL" is a generic term, when it isn't. When dealing with matters of law, exact wording is very important -- that's why licenses are in "legalese" and not "plain english" -- it's because plain English just doesn't cut it when every word matters and must be precisely defined.

WOTC will be (unless they change their mind again) issuing a free (no up-front cost, except for early adopters), no-pre-approval license to use the D&D 4e trademarks and some (we don't know what or how much) content from the 4e rulebooks. They intend for it to be used for D&D supplements only; how much of their intent translates into law we won't know until we see the license, but the odds are good they will have written themselves some very broad, "at our discretion" withdrawal of permission clauses if anyone starts getting too clever.

This license is not the OGL. Period, full stop.

If it WAS, none of their "community standards" and other clauses could be enforced. Their sudden realization of what everyone who used the license for the past eight years knows by heart is amusing, and is why the license is now the "GSL". As a second consequence of this, no material covered by the OGL is covered by the GSL. The GSL can't just say "Oh, yeah, we cover it, too". Otherwise, I could write "Lizards Gimme License" (the LGL), and declare it allows me to use material released under the OGL without any of those "viral" clauses. Can't happen. Has no legal weight. The OGL does not in any way remove copyright from the creators. It's a license to use copyrighted material in certain carefully defined ways. No one can access that material via another license automagically; it must be explicitly released, by the copyright holder, under the new license.

Oviously, any company which owns the *full* copyright to material released under the OGL can re-release it under the GSL -- but that doesn't include any material derived from the 3x SRD, to which WOTC still retains full copyright. (As they should.) Unless WOTC decides to come up with some twistedly complex terms to sorta kinda maybe a little bit release the SRD under the GSL for purposes of "upgrading", but it will be a legal nightmare to do that and not allow the effective use of the GSL to make 3x compatible material.

The actual wording of the GSL is going to be...interesting. And if they want the 4e products of the early adopters to be high-quality enough to avoid another "Foundation" fiasco, they'd better get it out to publishers soon...

 

[The Little Raven]

Mourn and others keep trying to pretend "OGL" is a generic term, when it isn't.

Tell the Open Gaming Foundation that, since they lump all the licenses under the heading "open gaming licenses."

The actual wording of the GSL is going to be...interesting. And if they want the 4e products of the early adopters to be high-quality enough to avoid another "Foundation" fiasco, they'd better get it out to publishers soon...

It's better that they take their time and get it right, because I'm sure they want to avoid the Chairwoman Genes of the net exploiting some loophole and reprinting much of their game.

 

[Lizard]

Tell the Open Gaming Foundation that, since they lump all the licenses under the heading "open gaming licenses."

I thought I was on your ignore list.

IAE, there is a category of "open licenses", and there is a very specific license called "the Open Gaming License", which was issued by WOTC and to which they own the copyright. To claim that when they said "OGL", they were using a generic term, is much the same as claiming that the CEO of Kleenex corporation uses the name of his product generically. Further, while tissue paper is very common and comes in many brands, only one gaming license has achieved any kind of widespread use, and that is the the Open Gaming License issued by Wizards of the Coast. The poor analogy you keep using is taking 2d6 damage/round from being stretched so; do be a kind fellow and let it go.

Of course, this doesn't matter. 4e is not being released under the OGL, nor under any existing open license; WOTC has stated this outright, and has made it clear by changing the license name. A "free" license is not an "open" one; unless you believe words have no meaning, I do not see why you continue to blur the distinction.

(We haven't seen the GSL yet, and there's at least a slim chance it might conform to some loose definition of an 'open' license, but I really, really, doubt it, especially since WOTC chose to remove the word 'open', when they could have created a new license called the 'Open Fantasy License' or the 'Open Development License' or any other such variant which would not be a version of the OGL and thus would not be burdened by the 'any version' clause, which is their chief concern.)

I don't see why this is such a big deal for you. WOTC has the right to do whatever they wish with their intellectual property, and no one has any inherent right to it, and I do not think anyone is claiming that they do.

It's better that they take their time and get it right, because I'm sure they want to avoid the Chairwoman Genes of the net exploiting some loophole and reprinting much of their game.

I'd love to know where this "loophole" meme came from WRT the original OGL, since the ability to print it all and sell it was *explicitly noted in WOTC's own FAQ*, which is still up on the net on Wizard's site and which I've linked to many times. Do you think if you keep repeating "loophole" often enough, people will conveniently forget the truth?

 

[The Little Raven]

I thought I was on your ignore list.

You are. However, I have friends on this forum that refer me to posts that directly address me or mention me, so I can choose to respond or not.

I'd love to know where this "loophole" meme came from WRT the original OGL, since the ability to print it all and sell it was *explicitly noted in WOTC's own FAQ*, which is still up on the net on Wizard's site and which I've linked to many times. Do you think if you keep repeating "loophole" often enough, people will conveniently forget the truth?

I'm not talking about any loophole with the OGL. I'm talking about them making sure their GSL is tight and prevents exactly what they don't want: people doing what Chairwoman Gene claimed to be willing to do if noone else could do it (compile 4e rule information into an 3.X-style SRD, despite WotC explicitly seeking to avoid it).

 

[JohnRTroy]

Basically, from WoTC's perspective, the license used had a "loophole". Even if they knew things could be freely copied, they probably didn't realize the consequences.

I don't see anything wrong with closing-this up. For instance, a lot of bands and musicians being naive and not used to the record industry have signed really bad contracts. A lot of people support them breaking their contracts or renegotiating, especially when it seems like they are being exploited.

While it might seem strange to support WoTC being the "big company", I think there's an even bigger adversary. The "mob mentality". The people who insist that the license is good and that they have the free right to copy things for free because of the letter of the contract, etc. Chris Pramas statement about the people who copied their True20 rules into an SRD shows how this "mob rule" can actually be the bigger bully. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean you should do it.

For the same reason I support the bands attempt to break a bad contract, so too do I see WoTC not using the OGL for 4th Edition licensing.

 

[Lizard]

Basically, from WoTC's perspective, the license used had a "loophole". Even if they knew things could be freely copied, they probably didn't realize the consequences.

Hard to justify when on-the-record statements from the people who made the OGL say just the opposite. They not only knew the consequences, they INTENDED them. Now, the current administration might not like this, but let us not toss around phrases like "exploiting loopholes", as if something sleazy and underhanded was going on.

I don't see anything wrong with closing-this up. For instance, a lot of bands and musicians being naive and not used to the record industry have signed really bad contracts. A lot of people support them breaking their contracts or renegotiating, especially when it seems like they are being exploited.

Contracts are how we exist in a peaceful, mutually productive society. Allowing the unilateral breaking of one because it no longer seems as good a deal now as it did then is a recipe for first chaos, then totalitarianism.

The people who insist that the license is good and that they have the free right to copy things for free because of the letter of the contract, etc.

So, what you're saying is, people who take someone else at their word that they mean what they say are evil/wrong/selfish...and people who say one thing, but later claim they 'didn't really mean it' are good/noble/virtuous.

Riiiiiight.

If I hand over a notarized form authorizing you to hit me in the face, and you do so, and then I sue you because "I didn't think it would hurt!", which of us is in the wrong?

Chris Pramas statement about the people who copied their True20 rules into an SRD shows how this "mob rule" can actually be the bigger bully. Just because it's allowed doesn't mean you should do it.

Since there's an awful lot of material in True 20 and M&M copied verbatim from the SRD (as it was supposed to be), I have a hard time sympathizing. I would rather vent my wrath at people who scan books and upload them to file sharing services, than those who follow the letter of the law and go to the trouble of manually extracting and editing the Open Gaming Content. A major POINT of the OGL was to allow for the *re-use* of good rules; this is made easier by having the rules portion available in ASCII form. Extracting OGL is not a loophole or an exploit; it is using the contract AS INTENDED.

The GSL, whatever form it takes, clearly isn't intended to be used that way, so those who try to do so will be exploiting/breaking the law. I also think it will lead to much poorer third party support for 4e, and lower profits for WOTC, as it means fewer people will be staying in the D20 gamespace. Someone playing True 20 can extract value from a WOTC product much, much, more easily than someone playing GURPS can. WOTC has a vested interest in keeping people in the d20 space, and encouraging competitors to devote their creative efforts to supporting D20, not making their own games and pulling customers out of that space. They obviously disagree with this; time will show who is right.

 

[Nellisir]

WOTC has a vested interest in keeping people in the d20 space, and encouraging competitors to devote their creative efforts to supporting D20, not making their own games and pulling customers out of that space. They obviously disagree with this; time will show who is right.

Yes, but who knows if right and reality will converge. If the D&D market continues to dwindle, that may well be construed as further "proof" that the OGL irrevocably damaged D&D. And if it improves, it's proof that the OGL was damaging the D&D market, and being restrictive "fixed" it.

I'm 35; 4e seems interesting, but the crap swirling around it makes me feel old and tired and cynical. I'm becoming interested in photography as a hobby, and I started wondering today just how many cameras and lenses and stuff I could've bought over the years if I hadn't invested in D&D. It was the first time I'd ever thought that taking up D&D maybe wasn't a good choice.

Then I got better, but still. Old and cynical.

 

[JohnRTroy]

Contracts are how we exist in a peaceful, mutually productive society. Allowing the unilateral breaking of one because it no longer seems as good a deal now as it did then is a recipe for first chaos, then totalitarianism.

But this can and does happen all the time. And the reason why I use bands is that a lot of the people who like "free/open" source use the argument that the big record companies are exploiting the talent, which is why I used that analogy.

And people sue whether NDAs or EULAs, etc, are reasonable. Negotiation and lawsuits are part of it all. That's truly the way the system works.

And Wizards isn't even doing that! They are using their legal means to change their own game system (which they never abandoned the copyright to) and not use a bad contract.

A major POINT of the OGL was to allow for the *re-use* of good rules; this is made easier by having the rules portion available in ASCII form. Extracting OGL is not a loophole or an exploit; it is using the contract AS INTENDED.

Fans of the OGL keep saying that was the intent, but it was pretty clear that nobody expected dozens of people to create free alternatives to the for pay rules. Basically, regardless of the OGL, my own ethics as a writer tell me that if I take somebody's hard work and just copy items for free, I am doing something wrong. I don't like to steal people's hard work. (And I'm not talking about people making supplementary products, but rather the "cut-and-paste" everything into an on-line document types).

There is a small cult-philosophy that declares the OGL was designed for people to take whatever the want, give back to the community, etc. In point of fact, it is simply a license graciously given to us by WoTC, which I think some have exploited a bit.

The GSL, whatever form it takes, clearly isn't intended to be used that way, so those who try to do so will be exploiting/breaking the law. I also think it will lead to much poorer third party support for 4e, and lower profits for WOTC, as it means fewer people will be staying in the D20 gamespace. Someone playing True 20 can extract value from a WOTC product much, much, more easily than someone playing GURPS can. WOTC has a vested interest in keeping people in the d20 space, and encouraging competitors to devote their creative efforts to supporting D20, not making their own games and pulling customers out of that space. They obviously disagree with this; time will show who is right.

WoTC has only a vested interest in keeping people buying their products. The d20 gamespace are not all D&D buyers. Just because there's a common set of certain rules doesn't mean they are all compatible. The gaming market has existed before d20 ever came into play, RPGs have had competition since the late 1970s. Nobody really complained about conversions.

I'm sure WoTC has done their own market research and determined what's best for them. Has anybody really gotten any hard-fast numbers on whether or not the existence of the d20 license and the OGL has significantly increased the players in the RPG market. I'd love to see a statistical breakdown and polls to determine this.

The OGL had a few negative impacts on their own bottom line. (1) It encouraged freelancers to form their own companies instead of working for Wizards, which I think hurt them somewhat--as a consumer I love what some of them worked on though! (2) It allowed for free alternatives, especially with the SRD.

Personally, I wish people would prove them (and me) wrong! Keep using the d20 ruleset based on 3e. That's the way to prove that Wizards is wrong. Support Spycraft, Acrana Evolved, M&M, and the other games and keep playing the existing 3rd Edition. If enough of you really care, Wizards will feel it.

But so many people still want to suck from the D&D teat that they feel they must upgrade to 4e. Nobody has to do it.

 

[Lizard]

Basically, regardless of the OGL, my own ethics as a writer tell me that if I take somebody's hard work and just copy items for free, I am doing something wrong.

AUGH!!!!

If someone has a sign reading "Free Papers -- Take One!", is it stealing if you DO WHAT THE SIGN SAYS?

There's nothing unethical about using content which people HAVE EXPLICITLY SAID IS OK TO USE.

The OGL is viral because, otherwise, the benefit would be solely one way; you could take, but could not give. As it is, the OGL allows anyone to protect any original work; only that which is derived from other free content is "infected". (This got it a lot of criticism from the GPL crowd, but I agree with it.) Many companies went "above and beyond", opening a lot of content they could have engineered as closed, because they respected the very ethical position of "do unto others as they have done unto you".

It astounds, and, frankly, disgusts, me that people are, basically, equating the use of the OGL (a wholly voluntary contract no one was forced to sign) with file sharing and similair things (which is out-and-out theft).

There is nothing unethical about using content according to the terms of the contract the content was released under. None. Not even a teensy bit. It's not a grey area, it's not borderline, it's not open for reasonable debate. If the contract says "You are free to copy this work, in accordance with the contract", then do so.

 

[Hussar]

It's things like the following quote that makes me not have a whole lot of sympathy for the 3rd party publishers:

The True20 rules originally appeared in the Blue Rose game and we eventually decided to release them on their own as a more generic rule set. Before the True20 core book was even released, we were queried by someone who had taken all the rules out of Blue Rose and wanted to give them away on his website as a True20 SRD. We answered that if we wanted there to be a True20 SRD, we'd do one ourselves. With our core book not even out, we really were not hot on the rules being given out for free. He agreed not to make the site public for a year but since then the rules have indeed been available. We took no hostile action in this case. We were asked a question and we gave our opinion. We did not try to impede the effort, we sent no cease and desist letter, we didn't pillory the guy on the internet.

So, Pramas is patting himself on the back for not violating the OGL? He had no right to impede the effort. Not a single leg to stand on. The guy was doing exactly what he was allowed to do by rights in the OGL. That this hurts GR's bottom line is besides the point isn't it? After all that's the arguement we get about WOTC. WOTC is supposed to give everything away for free and let everyone do whatever they want, but, if it comes around to someone else, whoa nellie! Back the truck up! We can't have that at all.

I realize that the GSL will not be the OGL. They will be different licenses. That's true. But, that doesn't make 4e closed. The GSL, apparently, will be a true reference document, without any of the text. So, if you want to publish a 4e module, you can by the GSL because you can reference the references (See Page X in Book Y), but, what you can't do is republish the actual content.

So, yeah, it sucks if you want to make a derivative game off of 4e. It's likely not going to happen since you can't reprint the text. But, for support material - new monster manuals, modules, whatever, it's just fine.