Forking the OGL

[JamesM]

Clearly, views WOTC expressed a few years back have been re-evaluated in the light of experience. Isn't it time to ask WOTC to cash in on their whole bank of intellectual property?

Don't misunderstand me: I would love to see this happen; I simply don't expect it. I think it far more likely that, at some future date, the trademark "Dungeons & Dragons" will be used primarily to sell video or miniatures games and a pen & paper tabletop RPG will be a small sideline, if it even exists at all, but I'm probably more cynical than I have any right to be.

You paint a picture of an intriguing possibility and I'd dearly love for it to be a reality.

 

[Lizard]

Six months of speculation... That's how long we'll have to wait until we see the new license and the new rules (a year until one can publish without paying $5k).

I think it's worth noting that when the OGL first came out, the terms were very public, and WOTC was bending over to assure people that it wasn't a Cunning Ploy to steal their work, and they greatly emphasized freedom, utility, openness, and sharing. The "new" OGL is being kept double-plus-secret, and the emphasis is on restrictions and limits.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I think it's worth noting that when the OGL first came out, the terms were very public, and WOTC was bending over to assure people that it wasn't a Cunning Ploy to steal their work, and they greatly emphasized freedom, utility, openness, and sharing. The "new" OGL is being kept double-plus-secret, and the emphasis is on restrictions and limits.

You forgot "which is their right, and certainly only for valid business reasons".

RC

 

[Goblinoid Games]

Can we organise to persuade WOTC to try something like this?

What do you suggest?

 

[Reynard]

RPGs don't have a shelf-life. There are still plenty of people playing thirty-year-old editions of the game who see no benefit in switching. And with each new edition, the community fragments further, because previous editions are still played, even if relatively unsupported.

In the meantime WOTC are sitting on a pile of potentially revenue-raising intellectual property, and refusing to use it, in case that material has a negative impact on sales of the new flagship product 4e.

All through last year (up until the 4E announcement anyway) I had this secret hope that there'd be a 30th anniversary edition of AD&D. I would have paid upwards of $75 a book for reprinted, collectors editions of each of the three core books.

 

[Cergorach]

What do you suggest?

Somehow I see a mob with pitchforks and torches, chanting "Burn it! Burn it!".

We don't have enough information, the information we do have is circumspect because the folks that are doing the talking are using terms they either don't fully understand or the license is being misrepresented. Maybe we should file this topic away for six months and start then with some actual information to discuss, if we continue on this path I suspect that Wulf is going to get a coronary (due to the stress of it all) ;-)

Open source:

The Open Source Definition
Submitted by Ken Coar on Fri, 2006-07-07 15:49. ::
Introduction

Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code. The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with the following criteria:

1. Free Redistribution
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

2. Source Code
The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

3. Derived Works
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code
The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

7. Distribution of License
The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.

8. License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.

9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software
The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.

10. License Must Be Technology-Neutral
No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.

The trouble with the Open Source definition:
While asking $5k for it isn't the problem, the problem is that they are limiting who (only folks with a legimate business license) and when they can release it (the $5k payers can release on 1st of august, the rest on 1st of january 2009). Not to mention the NDA.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

What do you suggest?

I just want to encourage the ENWorld community to speak up for Open Gaming, for Ryan Dancey's vision, for the gamers who don't want to abandon their financial and emotional investment in previous or soon-to-become-previous editions, for the small publisher without $5k to blow, and for the rather vocal group of 4e-skeptics.

I think that if WOTC comes to understand how those customers and potential customers feel, and how numerous they are, then WOTC will reach its own judgment on how best to treat them.

If I were WOTC I wouldn't continue with the present tactics. I'd be looking for a way to generate the same buzz they generated with the 3e launch, and that's going to mean some thinking outside the box--in terms of business practices as well as game mechanics.

 

[Delta]

I think that if WOTC comes to understand how those customers and potential customers feel, and how numerous they are, then WOTC will reach its own judgment on how best to treat them.

At this point, WOTC is clearly committed philosophically, technically, and financially on a business plan that walks away from Open Gaming and earlier editions.

If we were talk about a future edition, after we all see the results of the 4E strategy, than that could be a different story.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

At this point, WOTC is clearly committed philosophically, technically, and financially on a business plan that walks away from Open Gaming and earlier editions.

Sure. And as the man carrying the can for OSRIC, I'm committed philosophically, technically and to a certain extent financially to a business plan that heads directly towards Open Gaming and earlier editions.

Do you think WOTC incapable of changing their minds? I don't. Certainly not at a time like this.

 

[Delta]

Sure. And as the man carrying the can for OSRIC, I'm committed philosophically, technically and to a certain extent financially to a business plan that heads directly towards Open Gaming and earlier editions.

Do you think WOTC incapable of changing their minds? I don't. Certainly not at a time like this.

Of course, you're the one I'm rooting for.

But actually, yes, at this particular time I do think WOTC is actually incapable of changing their minds. It's a big ship that will take at least 2 years to turn around, if ever.