Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Jack Daniel]

One of the simplest ways to resolve this (for WotC) is to do as 4e did: create a new license for 5.5 and not release the new stuff under OGL anything.

The GSL didn't need to 'unauthorize' OGL v1.0a because it was not relevant, and they left it alone for not-4e (i.e. 3e and 3.5) open content. No problem.

The big problems with that are 5.0–5.5 compatibility and the fact that Pathfinder exists now. Nothing like Pathfinder existed when the GSL scheme was dreamed up.

I'm convinced that this whole mess has come about because WotC is desperate to prevent the emergence of an OGL-protected 5.0-compatible fork of D&D à la Pathfinder that could potentially do to OneD&D what they believe Pathfinder did to 4e. And, to a lesser extent, to prevent 3PPs from using the OGL v1.0a and the 5.1 SRD to produce content compatible with OneD&D.

The only way to prevent these things is to nuke the OGL, and if that means going scorched earth on the 3PP ecosystem and wiping out Paizo and the rest of the competition as collateral damage, so much the better for them, they still get everything they want and more.

 

[S'mon]

See just above: if the concern is with legal entitlements, then the better view, I think, is that they can't. If the concern is with "lawfare" then any purported revocation of the OGL is just a vehicle. Publishing without a licence from WotC won't make anyone any safer from lawfare, as best I can tell.

Only if they strike the first blow.

I guess if WotC make a declaration purporting to unilaterally terminate all existing licence agreements someone could go to court seeking a declaratory judgement that WotC's declaration is ineffective, but why would someone else want to strike first?

I think @S'mon's OSRIC-inspired suggestion makes more sense - wait for WotC to send its correspondence, and then respond asserting one's rights and see if WotC really want to proceed, or rather back off.

Yes, I agree strongly on both points. I think the point I bolded above is in danger of being overlooked by the non-lawyers here; some seem to think that the way to stay safe is to stampede away from the OGL. Heck, maybe that was WoTC's evil plan. The reality is that the OGL remains a powerful shield, and AFAICT you are much safer with it, rather than throwing it away.

Disclaiming all liability for advice (I am not your lawyer, I'm not even a qualified practioner): the best thing to do IMO, certainly in the UK, is to sit tight with the OGL 1.0, and be ready to defend if necessary, if WoTC do come after you. Also be ready to reach out to the rest of the 3PP community for support. You guys are stronger together.

 

[Staffan]

You’d probably want to create a separate SRD of just the stuff you want to release under a CC license. That’s what Blades in the Dark does with its SRD, which is released under CC-BY-3.0. None of the setting information (including crews and playbooks) is included, but the core of the system is there.

This would seem to work for one step downstream, but I don't see how it can work for multiple "generations" of content – at least not with a CC-BY-SA license (which I think would be the closest to the OGL).

With the OGL, Paizo could release Pathfinder. Then Dreamscarred Press could make Ultimate Psionics, based on Pathfinder and the psionics rules in the SRD. Another party could then make an adventure that included the psionics stuff. I don't see how that's possible when the CC:ed version is separated into a separate work.

 

[mamba]

I'm convinced that this whole mess has come about because WotC is desperate to prevent the emergence of an OGL-protected 5.0-compatible fork of D&D à la Pathfinder that could potentially do to OneD&D what they believe Pathfinder did to 4e.

given how close 5e and 1DD are supposed to be, there would not be a rift like going from 3e to 4e. If anything, this act is creating such a rift

 

[pemerton]

No idea really. My theory was that if I have a separate RPG that just used the OGL 'for convenience' then I would be safer removing it as then WotC has nothing to sue over (which was the case I replied to).

I don't see how including the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, whether or not that is "for convenience", can make you more vulnerable to being sued, except in the following way: if you are publishing content that in itself would not infringe any of WotC's IP rights, but that is something the OGL requires you to not publish because you agree that it is WotC's Product Identity.

But other than that, all including the OGL v 1.0/1.0a can do - as best I can see - is to strengthen your claim to enjoy permission to publish your stuff without being liable to WotC.

EDITED to add: I saw @S'mons post just upthread. While we're not on the same page about the commercial aspects of this, we seem to be very much on the same page about the legal aspects!

 

[kjdavies]

I don't agree with this. D&D players enjoy a lot of freedom to discuss, enjoy, watch and promote D&D independently of the OGL 1.0a.

@estar's argument (if I've understood it correctly) that the OGL v 1.0a creates an ecosystem in which talented D&D designers can emerge and be recruited by WotC (whether as staff or freelancers) is more plausible to me, particularly because it focuses on the supply side (where cultivating talent is important) than the demand side. An analogy would be the recruitment of indie film talent to help make Marvel movies.

I understand part of the hoped-for outcome of the OGL was that WotC could focus on profitable evergreen products (core rulebooks, etc.) and leave much-less-profitable products such as modules and other supplements to third party publishers. I think Ryan (primary architect behind the OGL) didn't expect it to work out that way, that he expected it to play out much as he did, creating a richer TTRPG ecosystem than existed before... that played well with (and to some degree depended on) the core that WotC published. That is, WotC and the third party publishers would both gain quite a bit from it.

 

[kjdavies]

Well, it appears teh stance of the Open Gaming Foundation is that OGL 10.a CANNOT have permissions changed because it includes it as a listed open game license and this is one of the requirements:

Ooh, I'd overlooked that. I'm not sure it would hold up, but well caught.

 

[pemerton]

This would seem to work for one step downstream, but I don't see how it can work for multiple "generations" of content – at least not with a CC-BY-SA license (which I think would be the closest to the OGL).

With the OGL, Paizo could release Pathfinder. Then Dreamscarred Press could make Ultimate Psionics, based on Pathfinder and the psionics rules in the SRD. Another party could then make an adventure that included the psionics stuff. I don't see how that's possible when the CC:ed version is separated into a separate work.

Just to follow up on this - it would require everyone to release two versions, wouldn't it? The "bare bones" version which is licensed under the viral scheme, and the full version that includes PI. The licences for the bare-bones version would then need to include one-way doors into full versions ie you can include bare bones stuff in your full version, but your full version is not itself subject to a viral licence, which operates only over your "bare bones" version.

 

[mhd]

I understand part of the hoped-for outcome of the OGL was that WotC could focus on profitable evergreen products (core rulebooks, etc.) and leave much-less-profitable products such as modules and other supplements to third party publishers.

I wonder whether it would have happened at all without the wounds of past conflicts in third party D&D publishing. Not having to be afraid of the TSR-du-jour was a big deal.

And now we're back to square one.

 

[Jack Daniel]

given how close 5e and 1DD are supposed to be, there would not be a rift like going from 3e to 4e. If anything, this act is creating such a rift

Yes, the irony has already been noticed.