My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[Bedrockgames]

The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."

Will they? They say they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they say doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text.

The lesson I took from the past month, and life in general, is if they can they will. So if something is allowed in the contract, a business is going to use it if it helps the bottom line, period. And in the case of WOTC, I've learned even if they technically can't, they still will if the text allows for any hint of ambiguity.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I've never suggested anything like that. Frankly, I'm very much on record as saying I don't even believe WotC can de-auth the OGL (though man that's a debate that's getting old, and doesn't need to be rehashed here.)

I'm talking about this from the perspective of a creator community of non-SRD derived stuff (eg Fate or Traveller) which now chooses to ignore the OGL completely and move to a new license. Cut WotC out of the equation voluntarily, and how easy or not that would be.

If there are no orphan works of critical importance in the ecosystem already, this wouldn't be too difficult. Just tedious. And everyone would have to update their licenses, in the right order.

I'd hazard a guess that doing so is actually preferable to having anything to with WotC or the new OGL ever again.

 

[Bedrockgames]

OGL v1.0a. They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.

To me this is, and has always been, the primary issue. It was what shocked people when the new OGL leak first occurred, it was the thing people debated most because it seemed so insane and so unlikely to be legal. I agree, I don't think they legally or ethically can. Until they unequivocally state that the OGL will not and cannot be deauthorized, I have no interest in anything from WOTC. I am done with them.

 

[Morrus]

If there are no orphan works of critical importance in the ecosystem already, this wouldn't be too difficult. Just tedious. And everyone would have to update their licenses, in the right order.

It doesn't even have to be tedious, depending on the new license. The new license may say "To comply with this license, simply put a note on your website listing the products you are placing under it" or something equally simple. You might not even have to change the books. Like I said, depends what the new license says.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Creative Commons. Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that sounds generous, but it's actually a reduction in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid).

Exactly. This one seems like they are giving something we already have, in order to do what they wanted to from the beginning: deauthorize the OGL. This whole thing, IMO, has been about WOTC desperately wanting to eliminate the old OGL.

 

[Dausuul]

Nope. That could cost me thousands.

What if there were also a provision that the third party could award compensation if WotC's decision was reversed?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It doesn't even have to be tedious, depending on the new license. The new license may say "To comply with this license, simply put a note on your website listing the products you are placing under it" or something equally simple. You might not even have to change the books. Like I said, depends what the new license says.

Of course, the problem is that they would technically need to it in exactly the right order, neatly undoing the matroshkya doll of dependencies and teasing out the strands of the spiderweb. But if everyone is on board, that probably won't matter. This is assuming that they want to re-license content under largely the same terms as before.

 

[Morrus]

Of course, the problem is that they would technically need to it in exactly the right order, neatly unwrapping the matroshkya doll and teasing out the strands of the spiderweb. But if everyone is on board, that probably won't matter. This is assuming that they want to re-license content under largely the same terms as before.

For non-WoTC SRD derived content, I think the primary publisher of each system, with the right license, can make that a painless process. I don't think it needs to be as arduous as that.

 

[Morrus]

What if there were also a provision that the third party could award compensation if WotC's decision was reversed?

Well, I guess that's effectively a court at that point? Just let us sue then?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

For non-WoTC SRD derived content, I think the primary publisher of each system, with the right license, can make that a painless process. I don't think it needs to be as arduous as that.

That depends. If there's anything like Justin Alexander's example in the Traveller ecosystem, it could be onerous.