The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Bedrockgames]

Oh, please.

It's a valuable IP and it belongs to Hasbro not you/us.

Don't like it? Write and publish your own game.

I don't know if all of Estar's conclusions are accurate or not, as I am sorting through all the analysis on these threads on the new OGL, but I think it is fair given the history of the hobby and why the OGL was created, and that we now have a large community of small publishers and fans who use the OGL. There is a culture of publishing and play around it. Not everyone is going to feel that intensely about it, or that passionately, but maybe being a product of the 90s, I definitely have sympathy for the push back against something that might lead to an overly corporate use of the OGL. That said, sure, Hasbro can do what it likes within the bounds of the law, but people also have a right to respond and give their opinion, especially if they don't like the direction of the new OGL. Also we've seen that Hasbro, or WOTC at least, is responsive to peoples concerns. So it is fair, if people can push back on naming conventions in the game, and do so as a moral argument, that people can push back on the business side as part of a moral argument too.

 

[darjr]

I will say, this OGL 1.1 does seem like it will break two things.

The OGL 1.0a is a safe harbor. This one isn't. Before you just needed to follow the license and agree to it's terms. Now, if you sell things, and make a certain amount a year, you have to wait on wotc. There is some point where they can say no. Yes? Does that seem correct?

Second the OGL 1.0a was a way to project D&D so it could live on regardless of what the owner of the IP did. The new OGL 1.1 doesn't seem like that would be even possible?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Well, the thing to also look at is what NEW information will be released for use under the 1.1 and HOW it will be released.

-snip-

IMO (can't stress this enough)...

This new one won't negate the old OGL's and what was OGL for 5e is still OGL, and 1 D&D will be backwards compatible (as per WotC's statements). In that light, it may not have as big an impact as some are thinking on the publication market, BUT, there may be some new items that will be the carrot that will make some of those bigger publishers consider using it (and I imagine a lot of it will deal with the size of the audiences on VTTs and online and the impact 1.1 will have on that as well as people wanting a piece of that pie. Afterall, selling 10K copies is good, but reaching and audience of 10 million and selling 100K copies is better...right?)

This exactly.

I think that being able to use new material that is published under the new license, and sell on whatever platform wizards ends up using with a "this guy is legit" badge, will be carrot enough for a lot of creators.

The thing I'm curious about, and don't like the prospects of due to the state of American courts right now, is whether this will bring disagreement about how much the OGL can actually restrict in the first place to a head, and end up in court somehow.

There is a, IIRC, pretty strong arguemtn that a lot of what is in covered by the OGL is fair use anyway. If the new OGL tries to restrict such content more, some creators may push back against that, or simply ignore it with a willingness to go to court to prove that what they've created is covered by fair use.

 

[darjr]

When did the OGL 1.0a FAQ disappear from WotC's site?

Here is a copy.

FAQ: Open Game License

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

One concern is: what exactly will they do with all of the financial information that they gather?

One possibility is that they use the OGL-finance data to start demanding royalties in descending tiers. Tax the top 20 to start, figure out the financial landscape, and start charging rent on the top ten percent, then the top twenty and so on.

My gut instinct as someone who has worked in a lot of auditing type areas is knowing what the third-party is selling and at what price point might give a lot more accuracy for Wizards to see what's selling. Polls about what sourcebooks you want to see, or what direction D&D gaming is taking, only gives you numbers from people who take surveys/feedback. Taking the hard numbers on price points products sell at (what cost/page etc), what subjects people in the zeitgeist are wanting to buy... these aren't subjective voices on forums; it's data being supported by actual numbers.

On a side tangent, it reminds me of something I saw Kevin O'Leary talking about. His son apparently works at Tesla and was talking about the amount of road data Tesla apparently gets each time their cars are on the road. "At the time, O’Leary was questioning the valuation of Tesla strictly as a car company. His son, who was a Tesla intern in the summer, convinced O’Leary to look at how Tesla was becoming a technology company and had tons of collected data." -- Why Kevin O'Leary Changed His Mind On Tesla, Keeps Allocation Capped At 5%

 

[Baron Opal II]

I was thinking:

I've never known Estar to be spineless.

 

[robconley]

Oh, please.

It's a valuable IP and it belongs to Hasbro not you/us.

Don't like it? Write and publish your own game.

Disagree, D&D, as well as other RPGs, are part of our common cultural heritage. It been 50 years we should not have to pay rent for it. Especially to a nonperson corporation that never was involved in its creation.

With Dancey getting the D20 SRD out as open content under the OGL we didn't have to wait until at least 2070 to use some of it without someone paying rent. My position we should keep pushing that for subsequent editions as well. We got something that was good enough for 5e and we should put for the same and more for OneD&D.

Hasbro will continue to make their money as did with 5e. 5e experienced it's greatest growth AFTER the release of the 5e SRD.

If Wizards introduces problems then the hobby has the tools to fix it. It happened with 4th edition and it will happen with OneD&D if there are problems. But it would be nice to have to do what Pazio had to do and just get on with creating, sharing, and publishing fun and neat stuff. The way these things goes it is easier to act on the objections now rather than later when more work has been done on the license.

 

[robconley]

What about 0e, 1e, 2e or 5e? (4e has its own license)

For 0e to 2e it turns out that not using the newer mechanics in the d20 SRD results in a system that is but a hop and a skip from various classic editions. So that is covered.

5e has it's own SRD under the OGL 1.0a. Unlike the d20SRD there is a lot missing from the 5e SRD in regards to the core rules. For example , there is only one example of a feat. So if a publisher wanted to make a Open5e alternative, they have more work to do than Paizo.
But then again, Paizo did put a lot of work into making Pathfinder 1.0 a step beyond 3.5 'as is'. And it worked out.

 

[mamba]

If the 3e OGL had these terms, there would be no Pathfinder or OSR. It the 5.1 SRD did, it would mean no Solasta. This license is no more “open” than the source-aware licenses that charlatans try to push as “open” replacements for true FOSS licenses.

Really? What prevents Pathfinder or the OSR here? As far as I can tell nothing at all does, at most they end up having to share a bit of revenue with WotC.

No idea if Solasta (which I just looked up and know nothing about) is even using the OGL. According to WotC they are not covered by it even today however.

 

[robconley]

Really? What prevents Pathfinder or the OSR here? As far as I can tell nothing at all does, at most they end up having to share a bit of revenue with WotC.

No idea if Solasta (which I just looked up and know nothing about) is even using the OGL. According to WotC they are not covered by it even today however.

There is not enough information to see how a Pathfinder could be prevented. But for Solasta, they said that one of the goals is that the license is only for printed and electronic books in a static format.