My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[FrogReaver]

Sigh. Unless the offer of a particular license, currently in use, is withdrawn.

TomB

I thought the license was for you not your product?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Building on that, they should consider letting some "branded" products be sold on DnDBeyond, for a royalty. That would make DnDBeyond even better, generate another revenue stream for WotC, and give 3PP access to a huge market.

I am adding this to my response... this is a GREAT point

I mentioned this in another thread, but one reason that I don't buy more 3PP is because I rely on DDB so much when running my games, so material that isn't integrated into it is a pain (particularly monsters, spells, and magic items).

i don't use DDB but if we are moving forward this way I agree

 

[GMforPowergamers]

We REALLY don't give a HOOT what you all do as long as you don't:

1. Purposefully make offensive or disturbing content
2. Make a VTT, character databasse app or site, or some other non-book D&D product to compete with the ones we are planning
3. Push a version of 5e as a complete game as a competitor AFTER One D&D is lanched

yeah this seems to be what they care.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not sure how much experience or familiarity you have with legal argument. In the time that this discussion has been going on I've written or helped write four exam papers. Each of them has multiple issues - interpretive and factual - where the legal answer is unclear: that's the point of a law exam.

Some. I was at one time an assistant legal librarian during two periods of my life.

I've posted, in this and other threads, a range of plausible arguments for various constructions of the OGL. None of them is obviously wrong (hence plausible). None is knock-down or presented by me in a definitive or dogmatic fashion.

I would find that more credible if this was not an apparent change of perception over time. That tells me either the earlier participants on WOTCs side were deluded or the current ones are lying or deluded. You can substitute "confused" for "deluded" in that sentence if you prefer, but I don't think that substitution substantially changes it.

The description of WotC as lying, or deceptive, or self-deluded, is in my view completely inapt and gets in the way of people trying to understand what the legal effect and operation of the existing, and the proposed new, OGL are.

You, of course, have a perspective given your profession and experience that I cannot share, but I will have to state that it would not be the first time I have seen a company get into a contract related process that even lawyers in the field considered pretty questionable. They haven't always lost, either. I don't believe I'd have characterized their approach any different than I would have here. It still appears as indistinguishable from intellectual dishonesty in their own interest or confusion in the same made practical by legal uncertainty.

 

[Faolyn]

(Reposting from another thread) Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.

Great, we've regressed to the 1950s and the Comics Code Authority.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Great, we've regressed to the 1950s and the Comics Code Authority.

It's way worse, actually. The CCA was formed by an association of publishers and distributors who agreed to a restrictive set of moral standards in response to the threat of lawmakers getting involved (it was a moral panic). The proposal here is a dictatorship ruled by a single company aiming for a monopoly.

I'm sticking with my position that the OGL 1.0(a) can't and shouldn't be "deauthorized". If anyone wants money for a lawsuit over that, I will contribute.

 

[jgbrowning]

(Reposting from another thread) Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.

The d20 System Trademark License. It was done for many years. The morality "reason" of why there needs to be a 1.2 is fallacious.

joe b.

 

[Scribe]

We REALLY don't give a HOOT what you all do as long as you don't:

1. Purposefully make offensive or disturbing content
2. Make a VTT, character databasse app or site, or some other non-book D&D product to compete with the ones we are planning
3. Push a version of 5e as a complete game as a competitor AFTER One D&D is lanched

If they did that, we would not be in this situation.

Regarding item 3. How much of the pie, is going to PF/Level Up/OSR? Really?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Great, we've regressed to the 1950s and the Comics Code Authority.

To be clear, I think this is a Trojan horse to attack 1.0a with.

However, if they were allowing their trademark and brand trade dress in a license then I think they would be remarkably foolish to not require people using it to obey a code of conduct with real teeth in the agreement.

There is no need to change 1.0a as it already forbids wrapping yourself up in their brand and trademarks. The only actual link is one they create by requiring the license be reprinted in the work itself instead of just stating that the work is under it and listing the copyright sections and product identity sections additions from the base license only.

 

[Voadam]

Regarding item 3. How much of the pie, is going to PF/Level Up/OSR? Really?

I think I read WotC made close to a billion last year and Paizo made $39 million. So 4% or 1/25th for Paizo as the top competitor?

I don't have a direct source on hand for these numbers or how much of that was D&D/Pathfinder versus other stuff like MtG or pathfinder novels and such.