OGL Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse


log in or register to remove this ad


From the OGL 1.2 FAQ (last question), underlines for emphasis by me:

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.

Why are you trusting their word on this? WotC's word is worthless unless done in a way that is legally binding.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
That is what they are planning to do (except the morality clause bit); however, it remains to be seen if the get there. Personally, I don't mind a morality clause that is more clearly defined by a 3rd party and with a means for review and appeal to a 3rd party.
That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.
 

ThorinTeague

Explorer
This is very easy to say when one does not have skin in the game. It isn't your company that'll be sunk in legal limbo for years going bankrupt funding the court cases in which you have to prove that.
Well, that's not entirely true.... but nowhere near as much as any of the established publishers. All I've lost is time. All I have to do is remove the OGL and strip out any SRD language, and rewrite the whole system from the ground up; this whole debacle has set my project back at least a year. AAW, on the other hand, has skin in the game, projects in various stages in the pipeline (conception->writing->art->legal->design->preflight->press->proof->approve->mass press->ship--if it goes off without a hitch) and their recent public statement pretty much says it all. I (in my completely not at all authoritative opinion) expect to hear more companies taking that track in the coming weeks, as well as more companies joining the growing club of 3pp's corporately preparing for legal action (and probably kickstarters, humble bundles, etc. to help finance it as such).

But... you're right that my company will not sink into legal limbo and go bankrupt. Now if I had been just a little more focused, determined, less prone to waste my time on forums :ROFLMAO:...

Procrastination pays off once again!
 


Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.

So this part of the issue that makes real discussion so difficult. It's comments like this (claiming that this is a "self-destruct" clause buried in there). Or comments like the one I saw recently, wherein someone claimed that amending the morality clause to allow an appeal to a neutral third party wouldn't be good enough because .... Hasbro would just bribe anyone to get what they want.

That's not a "self-destruct" clause. Look, if you believe that Hasbro is just evil, then why bother commenting? They're just evil, everything they do is evil, and you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department. ;)

Instead, you have to look at things rationally. They had to have their legal to a complete about-face and draft a new legal document in a short period of time. Which they did. They are asking for feedback to it.

Why is that version of the severance clause in there? Because this was drafted by Hasbro's attorneys. Not you. When your own attorney drafts documents, they usually do so ... to protect you, and with the assumption that you will do the right thing. So from their point of view, they would have a concern that one of the many people screaming to "Burn it all down," would challenge one of the provisions that was important to Hasbro (say, the morality portion that protects the brand), get it invalidated, and then continue on. That's probably why it is there.

Now we have the chance for feedback. If this is actually a concern, just suggest they replace it with the CC BY-SA severance provision-
To the extent possible, if any provision of this Public License is deemed unenforceable, it shall be automatically reformed to the minimum extent necessary to make it enforceable. If the provision cannot be reformed, it shall be severed from this Public License without affecting the enforceability of the remaining terms and conditions.
No term or condition of this Public License will be waived and no failure to comply consented to unless expressly agreed to by the Licensor.


This would demand reformation first, then severance, and finally makes explicit that nothing is waived or consented to by the licensor. Again, this would be constructive feedback.

But if people are just getting out torches and pitchforks because Hasbro* is incurably evil, then there's not much point in any of these conversations, right?


*As a reminder, and to paraphrase Soylent Green, Hasbro is people! It's PEOPLE!
 

ThorinTeague

Explorer
you are just one of the people that want to burn everything to the ground. Except, of course, Hasbro has probably bribed the Fire Department. ;)

Blown Away Wow GIF by Aminé


Instead, you have to look at things rationally.
Unfortunately, if we've learned anything in the 21st century so far, it's that clearly nobody has to look at things rationally. :(
 

dave2008

Legend
then do not say ‘that is what they are planning to do’ when it clearly is not… if they had planned for it to be irrevocable, then the draft already would contain that language
I disagree. But I will conceded that I, nor you, truly know what they are planning.

What I see is a lot of standard contract language that lawyers think is not a big deal and wouldn't expect the reaction they are getting. I mean have you seen the thread on the boiler plate language? People are freaking out about terms that are already in the GPL and CC!

Do I want the standard contract language removed or revised? Yes! But it doesn't surprise me that the first public draft has language like this.
 

dave2008

Legend
That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.
By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:
  1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
  2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.
They have specifically said both of these things. Those are their plans.
 
Last edited:



dave2008

Legend
That is not what they are planning to do. They have said they are only putting 5e SRD in the OGL 1.2. In addition while you mention the morality clause, they also have the self-destruct - buried in the boilerplate of "If any part of this doesn't hold up", gives them the option to completely nuke the OGL for everyone. So if they take away OGL 1.0a (and 1.0), and then nuke this, there's no OGL left.
FYI, from the last question in the OGL 1.2 FAQ:

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.
 


mamba

Hero
By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:
  1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
  2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.
They have specifically said both of these things. Those are there plans.
They might be thinking about the former, there is no way this is an open conversation however. It is mostly a distraction and buying time, and only marginally a conversation about 1.2, and even then they are rather firm in how far they will change it, no matter what we say.
 


dave2008

Legend
I am so confused! :D
Context is important!

To clarify, I am taking them at there word that what they say they are doing (listening to feed back and releasing more content to CC and OGL 1.2), they will indeed do. I am not taking them at their word that they will make the changes needed, IMO, to make the OGL 1.2 truly open and superior license to 1.0(a). Or that their intent is anything other than what is legally bound in the license. I don't need to, the proof, one way or the other, will be the final document.
 
Last edited:

dave2008

Legend
They might be thinking about the former, there is no way this is an open conversation however. It is mostly a distraction and buying time, and only marginally a conversation about 1.2, and even then they are rather firm in how far they will change it, no matter what we say.
We have no proof of this viewpoint. You choose to believe this, I choose to believe something else. Ultimately, it doesn't mater what we choose to believe, what matters is what the final response from WotC is.
 

Blue

Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
By saying "planning" I am taking them at their word on two things they have stated. They could be lying, but I am, at this time, taking them for their word:
  1. Include more editions in the CC and SRD.
  2. This is "conversation" and they want our feedback to improve the OGL 1.2.
They have specifically said both of these things. Those are there plans.
I judged them by their actions so far, not their words. But you are correct, you said "planning".
 

Scribe

Legend
We have no proof of this viewpoint. You choose to believe this, I choose to believe something else. Ultimately, it doesn't mater what we choose to believe, what matters is what the final response from WotC is.

If we gave WotC the benefit of the doubt, they would have railroaded us to hell already. The only reason they have backed off in any way (and none on what actually matters) is because there was a united response of "No." when they got caught and called out for it.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top