It is time to forgive WOTC and get back onboard.

[Faolyn]

But if you play other games, that's reasonable and means you are open to something else.

I have seen some people say in threads (on other forums, I don't recall any saying that here) that they only wish to play D&D in one incarnation or another. I also saw some Youtube videos that suggested new games to play after the OGL debacle, and people thanked the creator, because they didn't even know other games existed.

That's the kind of thing that really makes me scratch my head.

It's what happens when you learn about D&D from someone else but then never go to look up RPGs in general, aren't active on gaming forums, and either don't buy any books yourself or don't buy them from gaming stores.

I have a friend who only got into gaming with 5e. The rest of us recently compiling lists of all of our non-D&D games, and they were just slack-jawed in amazement because we had so many, they had never heard of most of them, and knew almost nothing about the games they had heard of. Fortunately, they're more than willing to try other systems and we just had a nice introductory session of SWADE last Friday.

(Personally, I'm glad to be getting back into non-D&D games--I enjoy(ed) playing it, but I like a variety in my settings and systems.)

 

[Parmandur]

I have been wondering about this too. They just said they wouldn't touch it, which I take that to mean as they won't alter it...at all.

Which means, it's still revocable. I am not sure how putting it under the CC-BY affects that though.

Because the full SRD is in CC, there is no incentive to try and control the OGL material. Particularly if they double down and put the older SRDs in CC, or even make new SRDs for older Editions, them it guarantees the security of the OGL as being of no business interest to Hasbro.

 

[Enrahim2]

I know you have asserted this in multiple threads, and I understand your reasoning, but the fact that they have yet to legally ensured the OGL remains irrevocable forever suggests it isn't as clear cut as that. Not revising OGL 1.0 in this way strongly suggests they are holding an option in reserve to try to nuke it again.

They did the following with hardly any time to prepare: They did everything they could do really fast to ensure 1.0a is now safe to use.

Making a 1.0b might actually be quite a bit more work than just adding an "irrevokable" into the mix. A lot have happened in the last 20 years that make the 1.0a language seriously outdated. It can justify its current state by refering to the time it was written. That argument would likely not hold up so well if they released a new version now.

They might also still be contemplating an update to OGL1.0a that do not override it. It would in that case make more sense to put their legal resources into making sure they get it right for oneD&D rather than looking at updates for a to them obsolete license.

 

[Reynard]

Legally, the problem is that if they revise it, nothing released under 1.0a would be covered by 1.0b.

That seems to contradict Section 9, doesn't it?

 

[Parmandur]

That seems to contradict Section 9, doesn't it?

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

 

[Reynard]

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

Did 1.0a create issues for 1.0 material?

 

[Parmandur]

Did 1.0a create issues for 1.0 material?

The main issue here, that wasn't super relevant at that time, is the number of defunct or even deceased publishers from the early OGL period: people who have passed on and left their IP in Lombo cannot republish under a new license, which was fine 20 years ago for ywar and a half old products being updated in DriveThru RPG with a new license page. Now there would be a ton of orphaned work.

 

[Reynard]

The main issue here, that wasn't super relevant at that time, is the number of defunct or even deceased publishers from the early OGL period: people who have passed on and left their IP in Lombo cannot republish under a new license, which was fine 20 years ago for ywar and a half old products being updated in DriveThru RPG with a new license page. Now there would be a ton of orphaned work.

Interesting. Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Company A published a book with the monster Watzit under OGL 1.0a, but the owner of the company has since died and the company dissolved. WotC revises the OGL to be irrevocable and all around awesome, calling it OGL 1.0b. I write an adventure "Revenge of the Watzit" -- but I can't unless I use OGL 1.0a (and am thus not protected from revocation), since the Watzit was not and can not be released under OGL 1.0b. Is that the gist?

 

[Enrahim2]

Not from what I've seen the lawyers saying in the discourse here. Any new OGL introduces significant potential issues for older material.

I have read extensively what the lawyers discussed here. The argument I saw for section 9 not applying to the 1.2 draft was that there are legalese as to what can constitute a new "version" in legal terms, and 1.2 was obviously so completely different that it wouldn't satisfy those criterions. It was hence not any blanket statement saying that section 9 do not work as most would think.

 

[Parmandur]

Interesting. Let me see if I understand what you are saying:

Company A published a book with the monster Watzit under OGL 1.0a, but the owner of the company has since died and the company dissolved. WotC revises the OGL to be irrevocable and all around awesome, calling it OGL 1.0b. I write an adventure "Revenge of the Watzit" -- but I can't unless I use OGL 1.0a (and am thus not protected from revocation), since the Watzit was not and can not be released under OGL 1.0b. Is that the gist?

Something like that is my understanding, but I may be misapprehendeding the legal discussion.