Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[sigfried]

So, it really comes down to this. "You can use any prior version of this License" is true until it isn't. They can revoke that, just like they can revoke the rest of the license, Q&A notwithstanding. The Q&A indicates the status quo, certainly, but is not binding forever. I always thought that the section saying you can use prior versions was only a clarification. I think WotC's answer here is a little disingenuous. It may be a statement of their current policy, but I don't think it is an accurate representation of their own legal rights.

It sounds like you are arguing that anyone who writes a contract and enters into an agreement with it can modify that contract in any way at any time. That a clause that specifies how the contract works can simply be removed at will as a default.

Perhaps that is not what you are saying, but that's how it comes across.

I find that to be highly dubious. Such a principle would make the whole notion of a contract meaningless. The core understanding of a contract is that it binds two parties in a legal agreement based on the terms of the contract that both mutually agreed to.

This is a contract that has been in force and unchallenged for 25 years and during that time a specific understanding of its meaning has been in place. That what is shared as OGC remains free for all when using the license. To try to revoke those rights unilaterally, including agreements between other parties sharing copyrighted material with each-other, is both a violation of the language of the contract, what that language is clearly trying to convey, and the way it has been used in practice for decades.

This is not a one-sided contract where WOTC gives and everyone else takes. Both parties agree to give their OGC material over to any licensed user. Its terms specify consideration from both/all parties of the contract.

 

[pemerton]

All of this freedom to discuss, enjoy, watch, and promote D&D is self-generated without Hasbro, and comes 100% from the freedom of the OGL 1.0a.

I don't agree with this. D&D players enjoy a lot of freedom to discuss, enjoy, watch and promote D&D independently of the OGL 1.0a.

@estar's argument (if I've understood it correctly) that the OGL v 1.0a creates an ecosystem in which talented D&D designers can emerge and be recruited by WotC (whether as staff or freelancers) is more plausible to me, particularly because it focuses on the supply side (where cultivating talent is important) than the demand side. An analogy would be the recruitment of indie film talent to help make Marvel movies.

 

[Clint_L]

D&D Consider the reasons someone may choose a windows machine over a unix one - especially in the earlier days. There was just alot more software available for windows and it tended to work better because they had so many developers developing for their platform. So while Microsoft didn't get Royalities on that software, it did make their OS more desirable.

I think, from Hasbro's point of view, the issue is that no one is paying for the D&D OS.

They are in a situation where they had a tough year, and they are looking at how to turn things around. They go through their list of properties to see what they can focus on, and they've got this thing that has incredible brand recognition. But it's not making them very much money, especially compared to Magic, which is far more of a niche product but which has historically been a very strong earner that they strongly control.

So their financial people are looking at all the money that is being made in conjunction with D&D. They look at Kickstarters, they look at media (especially on the web, but you can bet they look hard at Stranger Things and Legend of Vox Machina). They look at Paizo. They look at tie in after tie in and work out that they are actually earning very little of the money that D&D contributes to. And then they inevitably start reassessing what the OGL has done for them.

And what the OGL has done for them is a lot less tangible. It has definitely been good for some small 3PP and companies like Paizo. It's been great for Matt Mercer. It has been fantastic for fans. But how, exactly, do you measure what it has brought to Hasbro/WotC? Nobody really knows how much it contributed to the success of 5e. So it's not like the Microsoft OS because Microsoft still got paid for every OS sold, whereas Hasbro doesn't currently receive a dime for a lot of products made under the OGL. What is happening now is that Hasbro is trying to make the OGL (or at least the updated OGL) like the Microsoft OS.

 

[Clint_L]

Further: I think most of us look at the OGL situation and think that obviously it has been great for everyone, including Hasbro/WotC. Because it has definitely been great for us. That's because it has grown the economic pie, and so everyone's slice of that pie has gotten larger. But Hasbro might be looking at that pie and saying, "you know, we could do better with a smaller pie that we own more of. Especially since we are about to launch into a whole bunch of huge media expansions where control of the pie going forward could turn out to be really, really valuable."

 

[pemerton]

Now, maybe their messaging is just crap

It's hard to work out exactly what is going on, because most of the leaks about the messaging are coming through channels that are unclear about the legal concepts in play (eg the difference between "revoking the licence" in the sense of rescinding the offer: "revoking the licence" in the sense of trying to require parties to the new licence to give up all their existing rights under the old licence; and "revoking the licence" in the sense of undoing the existing set of interlocking agreements that have arisen out of the existing OGL).

Upthread I agree with this post:

None of the above is particularly controversial. Its basic U.S. contract law. I strongly suspect that either (x) WOTC is trying to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt to convince people to use a new license OR that the community is misinterpreting a new license whereby a specific licensee agrees to terminate the OGL as a general termination of the OGL. Based on the way that most corporate attorneys work, I suspect option is what is happening, but it is possible that option (x) is occuring.

And I am still inclined to do so.

Which is to say, of the three options I have flagged in parentheses above, the first and second would be in play, but not the third.

Which would make this a rerun of the GSL, probably with a more permissive SRD based around copyrighted text more than trade dress (which I think is also implied by the press release calling it a revision to the OGL - this suggests a licence primarily focused on copyrighted text) but with the demand for royalties. My personal guess would be that someone at WotC is looking at royalties coming in via DM's Guild and wanting to secure something similar from other licensed publications.

The fact that Paizo have said nothing significant makes me wonder whether (i) they have had discussions with WotC and are waiting for the next step, or (ii) they are consulting with their own legal team. To me, (i) seems slightly more likely given that we know their are 3PPs under NDAs.

 

[Sidhanei]

Why not use Creative Commons ? Heck, I'd say the OGL was a good start too, fix it up a little and you are good

The OGL 1.0a was in 2000, and the Creative Commons license became a thing in 2001. It predates it. The OGL 1.0a was the industry's Creative Common/open-source license. This is why it is not D&D-specific. The SRD was D&D specific and was included under it, but the OGL itself is system agnostic.

 

[Xyxox]

Here is a link to the Open Gaming Foundation:

OPEN GAMING FOUNDATION

opengamingfoundation.org

Where Ryan Dancey founded it, I trust it.

Well, it appears teh stance of the Open Gaming Foundation is that OGL 10.a CANNOT have permissions changed because it includes it as a listed open game license and this is one of the requirements:

2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.

 

[S'mon]

It's been great for Matt Mercer.

I don't see how Critical Role the stream has anything to do with the OGL. They play 5e D&D, they don't play the SRD or even an OGL game.

 

[mamba]

I think, from Hasbro's point of view, the issue is that no one is paying for the D&D OS.

yeah, clearly no one is, D&D just had its best year ever.

Not everything under the OGL is a different RPG, much is 5e content.

They are in a situation where they had a tough year, and they are looking at how to turn things around.

they had that on the MtG side, and I am not seeing this helping them have better years ahead

 

[pemerton]

Indies want nothing to do with OGL 1.1. Now indies are even rethinking the need for the OGL 1.0a in the first place, and rewriting their products without it. Because nobody trusts Hasbro-WotC to honor the OGL 1.0a.

These indies will − again − become direct competitors against Hasbro-WotC.

If a game - like PF2, or Delta Green - can be published in substantially the same form but without needing to enjoy the protection of a licence from WotC, I don't think that is a good example of the OGL operating to support WotC's interests in promoting D&D. That RPG was already in competition with D&D!