Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Morrus" data-source="post: 8908371" data-attributes="member: 1"><p>It's better. It's certainly better. But it's still not <em>good</em>. These are suggestions I would make for their feedback survey.</p><p></p><p><strong>Revocability. </strong>It says it's irrevocable, but it's not -- while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is 'harmful' or 'obscene' at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen.</p><p></p><p>The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."</p><p></p><p>Will they? They <em>say</em> they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they <em>say</em> doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text.</p><p></p><p>I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their <em>own</em> content recently).</p><p></p><p><strong>Termination.</strong> Linked to revocation, above. The text says "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)."</p><p></p><p>Who decides whether we have infringed any of their intellectual property? Them, presumably? What do they consider infringement? What if I consider it fair use? I can't go to the courts for resolution; it says so right there. Violate any law? If I speed to get to a company meeting to discuss the content of our next book, can they immeidately terminate the license? This stuff is all too vague.</p><p></p><p><strong>OGL v1.0a. </strong>They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.</p><p></p><p><strong>Good stuff?</strong> Is there good stuff? Well, there's an absence of some of the leaked <em>bad </em>stuff. But the bad stuff already isn't in OGL v1.0a, so 'not doing bad stuff' is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that's good. Not being able to change it at-will, that's good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say 'good'; I just mean 'not bad'.</p><p></p><p><strong>Works covered.</strong> It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers "printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)". What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it's managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then.</p><p></p><p><strong>Creative Commons.</strong> Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that <em>sounds</em> generous, but it's actually a <em>reduction</em> in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid).</p><p></p><p>So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Morrus, post: 8908371, member: 1"] It's better. It's certainly better. But it's still not [I]good[/I]. These are suggestions I would make for their feedback survey. [B]Revocability. [/B]It says it's irrevocable, but it's not -- while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is 'harmful' or 'obscene' at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen. The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action." Will they? They [I]say[/I] they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they [I]say[/I] doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text. I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their [I]own[/I] content recently). [B]Termination.[/B] Linked to revocation, above. The text says "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)." Who decides whether we have infringed any of their intellectual property? Them, presumably? What do they consider infringement? What if I consider it fair use? I can't go to the courts for resolution; it says so right there. Violate any law? If I speed to get to a company meeting to discuss the content of our next book, can they immeidately terminate the license? This stuff is all too vague. [B]OGL v1.0a. [/B]They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't. [B]Good stuff?[/B] Is there good stuff? Well, there's an absence of some of the leaked [I]bad [/I]stuff. But the bad stuff already isn't in OGL v1.0a, so 'not doing bad stuff' is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that's good. Not being able to change it at-will, that's good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say 'good'; I just mean 'not bad'. [B]Works covered.[/B] It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers "printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)". What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it's managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then. [B]Creative Commons.[/B] Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that [I]sounds[/I] generous, but it's actually a [I]reduction[/I] in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid). So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft
Top