New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Olgar Shiverstone]

1) No OGL is revoked. Create the OGL v1.0b - it is the same as v1.0a, but includes the extra words that make it clearly irrevocable. The SRD for 3e, 3.5, and 5e remain under the OGL (and now can be used under the irrevocable license).

I view this as bare minimum and non-negotiable. Anything short of this and I personally walk away from future D&D.

2) The new license is the "OneD&D Open License", or somesuch. So, not actually a new version of the OGL. OneD&D may be released under the OD&DOL, so folks who want to work explicitly with OneD&D can do so, and can't revert it to OGL.

Yes ... though I'm not sure it deserves the term "Open" at this point.

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.

Agree and sensible.

4) WotC can have rights to some royalties from big players, but they are a percentage of profits, rather than percentage of revenue. That way, a runaway success product or new publisher can't accidentally find themselves taking a loss due to royalties.

No. That isn't an open license; that's just a license. If WotC wants to see other companies' income and get a share of the revenue/profit, there should be explicitly negotiated licenses for that. Plus "share of profits" just creates Hollywood accounting...[/quote]

 

[mamba]

But tell me how they profited from Pathfinder 1 using the OGL? Tell mebhow they profit from people using the OGL to create NFTs.

So while I do think that the OGL is mutually beneficial to all in most regards, I can understand why wotc does want to get some control back.

either I do not need to tell you how WotC benefits, or there should not be a ‘mutual’ in the second paragraph

Wanting an OGL 1.0b with nothing else in return is entitled.

They get me to even consider buying anything Hasbro again. Also, I do not see me insisting that they stick to the contract they voluntarily entered into as being entitled

 

[Umbran]

I'm not sure what you mean.

What I mean is, "You were using confusing language for that, but I figured it out."

 

[Scars Unseen]

But tell me how they profited from Pathfinder 1 using the OGL?

You're looking at this too granularly. WotC absolutely benefitted on the whole by the existence of the OGL because it helped the industry grow, with all roads leading to D&D to the point that even properties of other systems were getting d20 adaptations. Pathfinder wasn't a failure of the existence of the OGL for WotC, but rather a failure of their own unwillingness to continue acting in good faith. If they hadn't kicked Paizo to the curb and then put out a new restrictive license that essentially kept Paizo from doing business with 4E, they never would have had to go to the extreme length of creating a new game. So it wasn't the OGL, but the GSL that created Pathfinder and took WotC down a peg.

Don't believe that's true? WotC did. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone back to the OGL with 5E. But new leadership, old mistakes it seems.

 

[OB1]

This is a (+) thread. If you aren't interested in talking about what we'd find acceptable in a new license, please find another discussion.

We are talking a lot about what isn't acceptable. But, let us think in terms of a counter-offer.

1) No OGL is revoked. Create the OGL v1.0b - it is the same as v1.0a, but includes the extra words that make it clearly irrevocable. The SRD for 3e, 3.5, and 5e remain under the OGL (and now can be used under the irrevocable license).

2) The new license is the "OneD&D Open License", or somesuch. So, not actually a new version of the OGL. OneD&D may be released under the OD&DOL, so folks who want to work explicitly with OneD&D can do so, and can't revert it to OGL.

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.

4) WotC can have rights to some royalties from big players, but they are a percentage of profits, rather than percentage of revenue. That way, a runaway success product or new publisher can't accidentally find themselves taking a loss due to royalties.

What am I missing? I may take good suggestions from the thread and add them to the list above.

Here is what I would propose.

Keeping your point 1 as described.

Add a clause to the OGL that allows an SRD to modify the terms of the OGL for that specific SRD. Specifically call out that the SRD can modify rights to commercial videogames, software, movies, etc. and determine royalty rights. The SRD itself could even list itself as revokable.

This would give clarity to the OGL itself as a true open license, let SRD creators address the needs of releasing specific content within the language of that SRD, and create a carrot/stick approach to SRD creation. If you want to charge 25% royalties on revenue over $750k, you better have an SRD that is worth it to use. If you release an SRD and no one uses it because of the terms you put in, you could release a new version under the OGL with changes that might make it desirable.

 

[mamba]

Here is what I would propose.

Keeping your point 1 as described.

Add a clause to the OGL that allows an SRD to modify the terms of the OGL for that specific SRD. Specifically call out that the SRD can modify rights to commercial videogames, software, movies, etc. and determine royalty rights. The SRD itself could even list itself as revokable.

This would give clarity to the OGL itself as a true open license, let SRD creators address the needs of releasing specific content within the language of that SRD, and create a carrot/stick approach to SRD creation. If you want to charge 25% royalties on revenue over $750k, you better have an SRD that is worth it to use. If you release an SRD and no one uses it because of the terms you put in, you could release a new version under the OGL with changes that might make it desirable.

no license will do that, at that point they might as well make the WotC SRD public domain

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd go with something like:

• Keep the old Basic OGL (or Legacy OGL, or TrueOGL)
• Create the new one (Publisher OGL) by copying the publishing rules and benefices from DMguilds, but with the new royalty and revenue reporting thing instead of whatever the DMguild take on product published on their platform. When you publish, you enter either one OGL of the other of these for that single product. Choosing the Publisher OGL gives a lot of restrictions and comes at a price (should you cross that 750k line) but give access to the trade dress of D&D 5e, the stuff from previous editions and access to some of the allowed settings. So some kind of officiality in exchange for a lot of restrictions and examination.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Don't believe that's true? WotC did. Otherwise they wouldn't have gone back to the OGL with 5E. But new leadership, old mistakes it seems.

I do think it is partially true. 4e and GSL was a big bad decision. Maybe without the OGL they would not have been that dumb. We won't know.

 

[OB1]

no license will do that, at that point they might as well make the WotC SRD public domain

Not sure I follow you. I'm suggesting the the SRD can be more restrictive in it's use than the general OGL as defined by the SRD. IE. The general OGL doesn't have any specifics about royalties, but the SRD includes language that to use it, you must agree to report revenue to Wizards and that at certain revenue levels you pay a royalty.

 

[mamba]

Not sure I follow you. I'm suggesting the the SRD can be more restrictive in it's use than the general OGL as defined by the SRD. IE. The general OGL doesn't have any specifics about royalties, but the SRD includes language that to use it, you must agree to report revenue to Wizards and that at certain revenue levels you pay a royalty.

well, the OGL WotC ties to their SRD certainly cannot contain your proposed language, and that is the only OGL that matters for this discussion.

If you are just talking about the license terms by themselves that still does not make much sense to me, because anyone that would have liked to use the OGL for their own SRD (which is wholly independent from WotC’s) but would have wanted some tweaks to it, could just come up with their own license terms. They are under no obligation to use WotC’s OGL