My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[Alzrius]

I can't tell what your OGC is, because you define it by reference to things that I can't identify in your product (plots, trademarks, etc). Maybe that's just me.

I think you mean my Product Identity? Because that's where those terms are referenced. The declaration of OGC stuff is below that, and says it's everything between one header and another.

 

[overgeeked]

No.

Admittedly, that's an assumption on my part.

Sorry if I sounded snotty. It’s early for me and this is all moving fast.

 

[pemerton]

I am not providing legal advice and I am not a contracts or IP lawyer.

"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."

So first, licensees have contractually agreed not to challenge any hateful determination. WotC can try to get licensee challengers thrown out of court before any substance is brought up.

Second "sole right to decide" is pretty open for them.

This all depends on what is the meaning of "determination" in the promise not to challenge determinations. Does it mean the outcome? Or the process? Is there an obligation of good faith or non-arbitrariness?

In the abstract, I don't think it's quite as straightforward as you suggest.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Sorry if I sounded snotty. It’s early for me and this is all moving fast.

We good, I didn't take it that way at all!

 

[OB1]

Morality Clause. I would like to hear from people not bothered by it, about a potential future where, say Tencent buys WotC, or a controlling share in Hasbro with pocket change, and starts enforcing their view of what is proper and moral.

I'm picking Tencent because I expect their background might raise eyebrows of those who are cool with Hasbro, not because I think they're somehow specifically worse. (In my eyes they're just bad in a slightly different way.)

For me, it's because if either WotC or a company who bought WotC abuses this clause, I would simply stop buying product from them. And with the core rules existing in CC and apart from any one companies control, I'm sure I could find another system using the core rules of D&D from another company. For example, I recently deleted my Twitter account due to the person who bought that company.

Ultimately, WotC's right to enforce that provision as defined in the proposed OGL comes with it an implied responsibility to use it wisely or end up losing customers. Let's say, for example, that a company buys WotC and determines that Critical Role is in violation of the clause as a way to shut down their production of their D&D related supplements. What would the reaction be?

 

[eyeheartawk]

For me, it's because if either WotC or a company who bought WotC abuses this clause, I would simply stop buying product from them. And with the core rules existing in CC and apart from any one companies control, I'm sure I could find another system using the core rules of D&D from another company. For example, I recently deleted my Twitter account due to the person who bought that company.

Ultimately, WotC's right to enforce that provision as defined in the proposed OGL comes with it an implied responsibility to use it wisely or end up losing customers. Let's say, for example, that a company buys WotC and determines that Critical Role is in violation of the clause as a way to shut down their production of their D&D related supplements. What would the reaction be?

Less than what it is now?

I mean, that would only affect one publisher, right?

This affects everyone and the massive blow back here hasn't made them abandon it, so I don't know about all that.

 

[pemerton]

I think you mean my Product Identity? Because that's where those terms are referenced. The declaration of OGC stuff is below that, and says it's everything between one header and another.

Your declaration of OGC opens "Except for material designated as Product Identity" so I can't identify the OGC without identifying the Product Identity.

 

[Greg Benage]

Hasbro: We need this provision. This is about protecting our product and our brand from nitwits like nuTSR and others that might try and use this license and make us look bad. When we make mistakes (Hardozee) we can correct it. But if a 3PP is out there making D&D look bad, we need to be able to do something.

I know you think this is something we just have to accept based on what they've been willing to surrender, but I don't believe it for a minute. Some corners of the OSR have been producing highly visible material for years under the OGL that WotC would no doubt consider "obscene" or "offensive," and it hasn't done 1 hp of damage to the D&D brand. You know what has done extraordinary damage to the brand? Their efforts to "deauthorize" a twenty-year-old agreement with their community.

This is and always has been the lipstick on the pig. It seems so obviously and transparently the lipstick on the pig that I'm surprised anyone accepts it at face value. I'm not even opposed to a morality clause -- they're all the rage these days -- but that doesn't require me to accept the proposition that it's what this is "really about."

It's the video game and VTT stuff (and the gray area between them). They just spent $146 million on D&D Beyond. It's the core of their product strategy going forward, the heart of their plan to build a billion-dollar business. This ain't complicated.

I understand why they want to do it. I understand why they're willing to nuke the community commons over it. You have to break a few eggs to make a billion-dollar omelet. I get it.

Problem is, those eggs matter more to me than their omelet, and I'm one of the few here who would likely pay up to nibble on it. So bottom line: They have to choose between me and deauthorization. I have no illusions about what they're going to choose.

 

[Alzrius]

Your declaration of OGC opens "Except for material designated as Product Identity" so I can't identify the OGC without identifying the Product Identity.

Ah. That's one of those bits that I copied wholesale from a for-profit OGL print product (I don't want to potentially get anyone else in trouble, so I won't say which one). I've seen it used in a lot of OGL v1.0a products, and didn't think it was an issue.

 

[pemerton]

Ah. That's one of those bits that I copied wholesale from a for-profit OGL print product (I don't want to potentially get anyone else in trouble, so I won't say which one). I've seen it used in a lot of OGL v1.0a products, and didn't think it was an issue.

I'm not giving you (or anyone else) legal advice. I'm just reporting my experience in reading your blog!