How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[Grendel_Khan]

I sent an email to all the upper management of my current employer where I misspelled accumulators as assumulators in multiple areas including on the attached report.

The CEO actually teamsed me about it

Hope no one teamses you about this post!

 

[delericho]

In 2000, the OGL was published.
Until the latter part of 2001, WoTC was independent (autonomous). Then they were folded into Hasbro. It usually takes time for the higher-ups to start paying attention.
In 2003, they did the first distancing from the OGL (and 3e) be releasing 3.5e.

How was 3.5e a distancing from the OGL? They released an SRD for that, and this following the d20 Modern one. Plus, they added yet more open material with the release of "Unearthed Arcana" the following year.

I do understand that the release of 3.5e was bad for the mass of d20 publishers whose products were generally rendered obsolete, but I just don't see how it's a move away from the OGL as a whole.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

You have a point - large corporations can be like ships slowly turning in the ocean.

I used to work in comms for one of the biggest companies on the planet, and while it can definitely take a long time for a company to change course, it's pretty bizarre to not even issue a functionally content-free "We hear you" message after this sort of backlash. Either they're exhibiting a whole lot of incompetence or something else is up.

 

[yukigono]

At least it's not Cambridge, there's that!


I don't really care?

Ryan Dancey's vague opinions don't determine my or your ethics, and more importantly, whether you're "good people" or not, or your business decisions "return value to the shareholders" very rarely is determinative of what the law is regarding a licence/contract.

And the OA people are clearly scumbags, regardless of any opinions on this, because they're literally instructing people to attack an individual journalist, who, at worst is guilty of a legal misunderstand shared by a ton of lawyers.

I'm a regular listen to OA, and I usually agree with their takes, but I'm not a fan of how they've been responding to this on twitter. But I'm going to listen to their friday show and judge for myself, we'll see.

 

[Azgulor]

I think this specific question is best detached from the more general threads.

I have a friend with a team of writers working on a big 3PP Kickstarter/publication, planned to be for 5e using the OGL. She and the team, with my advice, are now working on a non-OGL version. But I suggested that before doing too much work on this - it will be a lot of work - she wait to see if WoTC makes an announcement reassuring 3PPs that they are not trying to revoke OGL 1.0. I suggested waiting until Monday 16th before pressing forward. But I wanted to see what other people think. How long should the community wait on WoTC to speak? Or should we not be waiting? A lot of people already seem set on abandoning the OGL, just from the threat that's been raised.

Respectfully, anybody that elects to trust WotC again regardless of what they say, is making a devil's bargain and, IMO, a fool. While this may be attractive (assuming WotC tries to mollify the situation) in the short term, the risk of getting F#-@ed by WotC down the road still exists. Now's the time to cleanly break free of WotC. It will be better for all (except WotC) in the long term, though I'm sure it will cause (not insignificant) pain in the short term.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In the leaked draft, WotC admits it might “receive community pushback and bad PR,” and says “We are more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision.” The Gizmodo article quotes this. But in the draft, these lines are about any judgments the company might make about licensors who are found to have engaged in hate speech, etc., whereas Codega frames it to sound like that quote is an admission regarding the OGL 1.1 itself—with the implication that WotC admits in advance that they predicted a possible outcry and might consider changing course.

It’s a crystal-clear example of distorting a quotation’s meaning by taking it out of context.

Definitely I think that could use better context but the comment itself appears in a weird context in the document. I'm frankly a little confused by its placement. It appears twice in the document that I can see, and in both cases it isn't in a section devoted to the issue of hateful content, but the two general termination sections (VIII and X, I believe). Maybe part of the confusion here is this is a comment in the section itself and I think a lot of people are confused by what these comments are exactly. The full text of the comment definitely leads with discussion of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. But it also does seem to get into other issues like that people waive their right to sue over termination:

We know this may come off strong, but this is important: If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed. To be clear, We want to, and will always, support creators who are using the OGL to help them explore sensitive subjects in a positive manner, but We will not tolerate materials We consider to be in any way counter to the spirit of D&D. Additionally, You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We’re aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We’re more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us. It appears under the Termination section.....

But the section they are commenting on is this:

VIII. TERMINATION. This agreement may be modified or terminated.
A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website and by making public announcements of the changes through Our social media channels.
B. Termination:
i. We may terminate the agreement immediately if:
a. You infringe upon or misuse any of Our intellectual property, violate any law in relation to Your activities under this agreement, or if We determine in Our sole discretion that You have violated Section VIII.G or VIII.H. To be clear, We have the sole right to decide what conduct violates Section VIII.G or Section VIII.H
and You covenant and agree that You will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action. To the extent necessary and allowed by law, You waive any duty of good faith and fair dealing We would otherwise have in making any such determination.
b. You breach any other term or condition in this agreement, and that breach is not cured within 30 days of Our providing You notice of the breach by communicating with You as provided in Section VIII.A.
c. You bring an action challenging Our ownership of the Licensed Content, Unlicensed Content, or any patent or trademark owned by Wizards of the Coast.
C. You may terminate this agreement at any time by (i) ceasing all distribution of all Your Licensed Works; and (ii) providing Us with written notice.

Like I said, I am totally open to journalists being criticized. They get things wrong at times and that needs to be corrected when it happens. I don't know that I would attribute sinister motives to this, as I am not fully sure I understand the context or full implications even after looking it up and reading it again myself.

Again, I do find these comments rather confusing since I don't know why they are in the document. So I am open to understanding more. But I also feel like this reads as if they are front loading the issues of racism, in order to make it sound like all of the other stuff in the termination clauses are part of some kind of morality clause (when it looks like their main concern is IP protection). Would definitely like to see others weigh in on this

 

[delericho]

Respectfully, anybody that elects to trust WotC again regardless of what they say, is making a devil's bargain and, IMO, a fool. While this may be attractive (assuming WotC tries to mollify the situation) in the short term, the risk of getting F#-@ed by WotC down the road still exists. Now's the time to cleanly break free of WotC. It will be better for all (except WotC) in the long term, though I'm sure it will cause (not insignificant) pain in the short term.

I tend to agree.

The situation is somewhat different for established players, who have a significant body of work that they may well not want, or not be able, to migrate. For them, there's likely an attraction to stay with the OGL (1.0) in the short term, if possible. Long term I would still advise migrating, unless WotC completely reverse gears (which I really don't expect).

But for newcomers, and indeed new projects by established players, I would advise moving away if at all practical. Because even in the realistic best case, WotC will only abandon their plans to deauthorize OGL1.0 for now - they will almost certainly leave the door open for trying again at some future time.

Barring a miracle, I think the OGL is effectively finished.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I tend to agree.

The situation is somewhat different for established players, who have a significant body of work that they may well not want, or not be able, to migrate. For them, there's likely an attraction to stay with the OGL (1.0) in the short term, if possible. Long term I would still advise migrating, unless WotC completely reverse gears (which I really don't expect).

But for newcomers, and indeed new projects by established players, I would advise moving away if at all practical. Because even in the realistic best case, WotC will only abandon their plans to deauthorize OGL1.0 for now - they will almost certainly leave the door open for trying again at some future time.

Barring a miracle, I think the OGL is effectively finished.

I agree but if the OGL is left intact, even just for now, it may provide a rich market since so many publishers are leaving it.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I'm not a betting man, but I'm guessing Hasbro/WotC will probably continue to be radio silent on the matter and wait on the news cycle to move on to the next outrage. As cartoonishly evil as I believe they're being right now, they're probably right that the amount of people outraged by this will end up being an ignorable fraction of their total market. Too many people won't object, either because they don't have the mental bandwidth to devote to it or operate under "if it doesn't directly affect me and mine why should I care" morality.

I really hope Kobold Press's alternative OGL gets off the ground. I'm a massive proponent of open licenses and copyleft, even if I lack the legal understanding to properly argue for it.

 

[Branduil]

I agree but if the OGL is left intact, even just for now, it may provide a rich market since so many publishers are leaving it.

To me this feels like saying "Well everyone is moving away from the coasts because of global warming so now is a great time to buy beach real estate."