New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Umbran]

I'm sorry but at this stage the only acceptable position is for WotC to hand over complete control over pre-One D&D to an open source organization.

You seem to have missed the point of the (+) thread here. You clearly are not on board with the premise set in the OP. So, I think most of this is better fodder for another thread.

 

[Michael Linke]

You seem to have missed the point of the (+) thread here. You clearly are not on board with the premise set in the OP. So, I think most of this is better fodder for another thread.

Now I gotta ask. What's a (+) thread?

 

[Umbran]

Now I gotta ask. What's a (+) thread?

In many threads, when someone wants to talk about X, you will quickly find them having to defend the idea that X ought to e talked about - responses go about how X doesn't exist, how X is a feature rather than a problem, or how the real issue at hand is Y. This frequently derails the intended conversation.

Like, if I start a thread on adding weapon speed factors and weapon vs. Armor type into 5e, it would likely get flooded by people saying these things are crap, and have no business in modern D&D.

In a (+) thread, participation is based on accepting the basic premise laid out in the OP. If what you want to say is that the premise is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, you need to do that in some other discussion.

So, a (+) thread on weapon speed factors and weapon vs armor type would be assuming that you are doing so, what are the best ways to do so, without having to argue over whether you should do so.

 

[Michael Linke]

In many threads, when someone wants to talk about X, you will quickly find them having to defend the idea that X ought to e talked about - responses go about how X doesn't exist, how X is a feature rather than a problem, or how the real issue at hand is Y. This frequently derails the intended conversation.

Like, if I start a thread on adding weapon speed factors and weapon vs. Armor type into 5e, it would likely get flooded by people saying these things are crap, and have no business in modern D&D.

In a (+) thread, participation is based on accepting the basic premise laid out in the OP. If what you want to say is that the premise is wrongity-wrong, with wrong sauce, you need to do that in some other discussion.

So, a (+) thread on weapon speed factors and weapon vs armor type would be assuming that you are doing so, what are the best ways to do so, without having to argue over whether you should do so.

To clarify and condense my responses then, I think most of the license is fine, but WotC should add some more clear incentives to the license so people are getting something in exchange for what they're giving up by signing. I don't know whether it's on WotC to walk back the "deauthorized" thing, since I think a judge will ultimately make that happen anyway if this goes to court. They can probably save a headache by clarifying that 1.0a is only deauthorized for people who opt in to the 1.1 license.

 

[CapnZapp]

You seem to have missed the point of the (+) thread here. You clearly are not on board with the premise set in the OP. So, I think most of this is better fodder for another thread.

The premise seems to be that if only WotC amends the OGL "we're" fine with that. But it's not "us" that the OGL needs to win back. Amendments to the OGL will have to win back the complete evaporation of trust, something the thread does not seem to consider.

So my genuine "+" contribution is to note that it won't be enough to massage the legal details, the various OGL paragraphs.

If you really wish to accomplish the thread's stated goal of writing an acceptable OGL you should discuss what the leak lost WotC, and what changes could bring back that which was lost.

My answer to what was lost is: the 3PP's trust in WotC. My answer to what must be regained is: that trust - to such a considerable degree they would be willing to even keep publishing under OGL 1.0(a) much less a new OGL, restrictive or not.

I think the changes need to be so massive it would make the result unrecognizable as a OGL 1.1b. The new version would have to backtrack nearly every concession it is asking of licensors, and completely reverse the business deal (from "deeply unattractive" if not "fatal to our business" to something like "this feels safe and profitable enough to actually consider").

But in the spirit of plus threads:

WotC cannot reserve the right to make any changes without the approval of the licensor, or at least the ability to opt out of the changes and keep selling existing stuff under old versions. If they stated the grace period was 180 days, not 30 days, and only affected stuff published AFTER that grace period, then the license would at least not be an obvious trap.

WotC cannot ask for a share of revenue. Only actual profit. No company willingly risks ruin by a) having a bad day but still b) have to pay as if the day was good.

WotC cannot ask licensors to just hand over their rights to their stuff. If they want to dangle a carrot (such as "if you choose to grant us these rights we'll halve the fees") that's okay, but the point is, you need to be able to politely say "no thanks I'd rather pay the full charge".

 

[Wulfhelm]

a.) Acknowledge that renouncing the OGL 1.0(a) does not and cannot happen for those who have already published under it, including 5e content. That also seems to be the legally sound position.
b.) Offer a legacy OGL 1.0(b) covering the 3.x SRD (and related) in the future, with strong irrevocability clause as long as licensees conform to the conditions. That should rebuild trust.

As for current and future content: Drop the pretense. Pull the OGL 1.1 altogether. No OGL or other blanket license. Fair use guidelines for non-commercial fan work. Sign individual license agreements with commercial 3PPs. (If you want to keep a boilerplate one available, your call.)

An "open license" with tons of restrictions makes no sense. A royalty-paying agreement will not be signed on a "one size fits all" basis. If you want to keep closer tabs on your IP in the future than you did in the past: Fair enough, your call. Most game companies do that. But trying to obfuscate that fact by publishing a not-really-OGL only invites disaster.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sorry but at this stage the only acceptable position is for WotC to hand over complete control over pre-One D&D to an open source organization. Nobody's going to trust WotC if they offer anything less, where they try retaining control.

Sorry not sorry, maybe? (I'm talking to myself)

 

[MoonSong]

Sorry not sorry, maybe? (I'm talking to myself)

Close enough?