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

[robconley]

I don't understand what significant difference to the licensing regime is supposed to flow from this sort of change in the copyright of the open RPG licence.

A neutral third party controls the content of the license. There could be other benefits depending on how it is setup. But that the main one based on what is announced.
Read this about all the things the Free Software Foundation do.

About — Free Software Foundation — Working together for free software

Here is the link to the Open Source Initiative

Home Page

From the blog Upcoming Open Source Events The Open Source Initiative in the news

opensource.org

The Linux Foundation

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/

All those publishers have for the past couple of decades had the capacity to licence their systems under the OGL, or some other open licence (like Chaosium). I'm not seeing the significant difference that flows from them being licensed under ORC instead.

The Open Source and Open Content movement is a personal and moral commitment born of the draconian IP laws currently in existence.

The Wizards of the Coast extreme actions to protect their IP as apparently made a lot of folks in the industry and hobby realize that perhaps open content "fanatics", such as myself, have a point about the predatory nature of current IP law. Thus are acting accordingly in various ways such as creating the ORC license.

Rob's Note:, Chaosium's OGL is a piece of crap as far as being an open license goes. I was a bit surprised to see Chaosium make any kind of positive announcement in regards to ORC given their past attitude to open content regardless if was under the OGL or not.

 

[bmcdaniel]

Rob's Note:, Chaosium's OGL is a piece of crap as far as being an open license goes. I was a bit surprised to see Chaosium make any kind of positive announcement in regards to ORC given their past attitude to open content regardless if was under the OGL or not.

I'm also nonplussed at Goodman Games. Dungeon Crawl Classics use OGL 1.0a but is extraordinarily stingy on contributing Open Game Content, reserving just about everything as product identity; even labels that they clearly could not copyright, eg "spell check" and "luck check." The result is that a downstream sublicensee agrees not to use these terms. I don't object to publishers keeping their system closed. But if they take substantially from the commons (as DCC does) they ought also give back. I hope Goodman takes the chance to reassess.

IMO, this is one reason the Creative Commons licenses are superior. They are very clear that a downstream sublicensee is not giving up rights to use anything that the licensor lacks copyright in.

Also kudos to Paizo. I'm not a fan of the fiddliness of pathfinder rules, but they are very good citizens in the world of open gaming.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Without an installed user base on the order of D&D's, that's a non-starter.

so the big thing is... how big of an exodus will we see from D&D?

I see a lot of people saying they wont buy from wotc but still play and teach D&D... I see some that think if it is a 3pp D&D variant that no longer counts as D&D... IF we kkeep the majority or lions share of players and dms then the IP holds it value... if we LOSE the lions share and they start pushing savage worlds or torg or fate, maybe not.

 

[jgbrowning]

A little off topic, but folks, I saw this non-ogl compatible meme and couldn't resist sharing....

joe b.

 

[ThorinTeague]

so the big thing is... how big of an exodus will we see from D&D?

I see a lot of people saying they wont buy from wotc but still play and teach D&D... I see some that think if it is a 3pp D&D variant that no longer counts as D&D... IF we kkeep the majority or lions share of players and dms then the IP holds it value... if we LOSE the lions share and they start pushing savage worlds or torg or fate, maybe not.

Who's to say--but--allow me to refer you to 2008-2012 when for the first time in history a competing game was outselling d&d. And they weren't even trying to claim the right to void the old ogl back then.

 

[CapnZapp]

The problem is this go two ways. Many have invested too much in crating things only available for further use under the OGL. It is likely true that nothing truely original and valuable will ever be made under OGL ever again. The question is if large parts of the enormous value the community has contributed to that repository over the two last decades will ever be accessible for any relevant use again or not. The OGL is also a genie that is out of the bottle, and I don't think any of those can be easily put back.

If you're saying publishers will go to court just to be able to keep selling old stuff, I definitely do not think so.

Sure, if some eccentric billionaire role-player gets angry and wants to make sure WotC is put into place, then yeah, everybody else gets a free pass to keep selling their old stuff once the courts give an emphatic "yes, you can't deauthorize the OGL 1.0(a)".

Problem is, this just isn't likely.

Or, to be honest, financially important. I don't think a single 3PP has old supplements with nearly enough value to justify taking just about any action, much less expose yourself to severe fincancial risk by exposing yourself to legal action from a top 100 company. Sorry but if you have old stuff you want gamers to keep having access to, I suggest you edit out the OGL from your work. Or just give it away for free.

 

[S'mon]

If you're saying publishers will go to court just to be able to keep selling old stuff, I definitely do not think so.

Sure, if some eccentric billionaire role-player gets angry and wants to make sure WotC is put into place, then yeah, everybody else gets a free pass to keep selling their old stuff once the courts give an emphatic "yes, you can't deauthorize the OGL 1.0(a)".

Problem is, this just isn't likely.

Or, to be honest, financially important. I don't think a single 3PP has old supplements with nearly enough value to justify taking just about any action, much less expose yourself to severe fincancial risk by exposing yourself to legal action from a top 100 company. Sorry but if you have old stuff you want gamers to keep having access to, I suggest you edit out the OGL from your work. Or just give it away for free.

WoTC have already said that current published works under OGL 1.0 can keep using it.
Edit: And Paizo has said they'll defend vs any attempt by WoTC to claim the OGL 1.0 can't be used.

 

[CapnZapp]

I disagree. Nothing about the OGL or the SRD (the content made OGC by WotC) has changed until a court says something, and that can only happen until after WotC sues someone causing such a case to arise. What has changed is the certainty of the lack of a court case associated with their use and, yes, that is significant, but I think something that will also change back to what the status quo has been for 23 years because WotC knows that they cannot make the change they would like (or at least would have liked) to make.

At least I hope so. Time will tell.

joe b.

What a court says isn't important. The trust is what's important.

And that has definitely changed. Irrevocably, you might even say

So everything has changed.

 

[CapnZapp]

Perhaps. But my own view is that a thorough understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of OGL 1.0a helps avoid repeating mistakes with whatever replaces it.

Absolutely. Academic interest is definitely a thing.

 

[CapnZapp]

WoTC have already said that current published works under OGL 1.0 can keep using it.
Edit: And Paizo has said they'll defend vs any attempt by WoTC to claim the OGL 1.0 can't be used.

Sorry, but I'm not interested. One week they're saying this, the next they're saying that.

The trust is gone, and what you're saying isn't bringing that back. That's what's important.

The exact stance WotC - or the courts - ultimately decides to take is a footnote by now.