Just reposting from Heath's Geekverse

[Jer]

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.

I thought that was the CC stuff, not the OGL v1.2? And that, like the CC 5E content, it will only be like 10% of the game, making it largely a useless gesture?

The CC-BY stuff is the only stuff that is actually being "open licensed". And that's good, though I would argue that if Wizards is actually concerned about people using their name in vain they should release it under CC0 and not require that everyone put their name on the books they sell since CC-BY has exactly the same "a bad actor could use our stuff with our name on it and we can't do anything about it" problem that the OGL does. The CC0 at least no longer requires that everyone put Wizards name on their book whether they want to or not to use it. (Also I'd argue that CC0 is closer to what Wizards is actually doing with putting this content under a CC license in the first place - which is acknowledgement that these are the parts of the rules that they'd have a heavy lift accusing someone of violating their IP over if they tried in court.)

The OGL 1.2 is not an open license in its current form and even with changes is unlikely to get there unless Wizards backs down a lot. It's a radically different kind of license than the OGL is - the OGL is an open share-alike license with provisions for product identity. Meaning that anyone can use the license without approval and everyone who does allows other people to use their works under that license as long as they use the same license. With a carve out for listing things that you're not sharing.

The OGL 1.2 is a two party license between Wizards and the content producer. Wizards has outlined a number of ways they can terminate your license if they choose to. And there's no provision for including other people's work at all. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that under this license you have to get explicit permission and another license from someone else to incorporate their work into your new product because the way this license is written it's an agreement just between Wizards and "you" and Wizards' content and "your" content is what is covered.

It's a completely different mindset around licensing than the OGL was. They need to take the word "open" off the front if they want to keep it like this. (Of course then they can't exploit Section 9 of the OGL 1.0a in the basely cynical way it looks like they're trying to do if they change the name, because that makes the game they're playing more obvious.)

 

[ilgatto]

The title is unfortunately sensationalistic and perhaps bordering on clickbaity but the content is rock solid.

It's time for Wizards to back down on "deauthorizing" 1.0a. This path is going to lead to disaster.

TRILLIONS at Risk: The Strategy to DEFEAT Hasbro and WotC in their Attack on Open Licenses, DnD, OGL

I guess a lot of what's argued in the vid depends on the exact nature of the battle-tested OLs in the software industry and how each of them compares to the OGL1.0(a).

 

[Morrus]

The CC-BY stuff is the only stuff that is actually being "open licensed". And that's good, though I would argue that if Wizards is actually concerned about people using their name in vain they should release it under CC0 and not require that everyone put their name on the books they sell since CC-BY has exactly the same "a bad actor could use our stuff with our name on it and we can't do anything about it" problem that the OGL does. The CC0 at least no longer requires that everyone put Wizards name on their book whether they want to or not to use it. (Also I'd argue that CC0 is closer to what Wizards is actually doing with putting this content under a CC license in the first place - which is acknowledgement that these are the parts of the rules that they'd have a heavy lift accusing someone of violating their IP over if they tried in court.)

The OGL 1.2 is not an open license in its current form and even with changes is unlikely to get there unless Wizards backs down a lot. It's a radically different kind of license than the OGL is - the OGL is an open share-alike license with provisions for product identity. Meaning that anyone can use the license without approval and everyone who does allows other people to use their works under that license as long as they use the same license. With a carve out for listing things that you're not sharing.

The OGL 1.2 is a two party license between Wizards and the content producer. Wizards has outlined a number of ways they can terminate your license if they choose to. And there's no provision for including other people's work at all. I'm not a lawyer, but it seems that under this license you have to get explicit permission and another license from someone else to incorporate their work into your new product because the way this license is written it's an agreement just between Wizards and "you" and Wizards' content and "your" content is what is covered.

It's a completely different mindset around licensing than the OGL was. They need to take the word "open" off the front if they want to keep it like this. (Of course then they can't exploit Section 9 of the OGL 1.0a in the basely cynical way it looks like they're trying to do if they change the name, because that makes the game they're playing more obvious.)

Yes, we know what the new OGL is. Intimately familiar.

 

[dave2008]

no they are not, 1.2 (in its current form) is more revocable than 1.0a is

UGH! I am so tired of pointing out that it is a draft and that it needs to change before it is acceptable. I have said that almost every time some one comments. I speak to what the OGL 1.2 could be, not what it is now.

 

[dave2008]

I thought that was the CC stuff, not the OGL v1.2? And that, like the CC 5E content, it will only be like 10% of the game, making it largely a useless gesture?

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.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I guess a lot of what's argued in the vid depends on the exact nature of the battle-tested OLs in the software industry and how each of them compares to the OGL1.0(a).

If anyone bothers to look at what, inter alia, the GPL 3.0 and the modern CC licenses look like, they will see that there is little similarity between them and the poorly-drafted OGL 1.0(a).

It's not even close.

 

[ThorinTeague]

If anyone bothers to look at what, inter alia, the GPL 3.0 and the modern CC licenses look like, they will see that there is little similarity between them and the poorly-drafted OGL 1.0(a).

It's not even close.

So enlighten us. You're the expert anyway, my layperson understanding probably couldn't process all the lack of similarities without having it broken down into plain language by an expert. This is not sarcasm, although I could see where it might be misconstrued as such. I actually want to hear what you have to say about it.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So enlighten us. You're the expert anyway, my layperson understanding probably couldn't process all the lack of similarities without having it broken down into plain language by an expert. This is not sarcasm, although I could see where it might be misconstrued as such. I actually want to hear what you have to say about it.

You can look at the varying levels of Creative Common Licenses here. The one most similar to the OGL is probably CC BY-SA ("copyleft"), here.
You can look at the GPL 3.0. Here it is.

Now compare that to the OGL 1.0(a). I'm not going to write a long text on it, primarily because I'm not getting paid and I just wrote about it a different thread, but the differences should be obvious.

 

[Umbran]

There is no need. It's already irrevocable.

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.

 

[Clint_L]

The title is unfortunately sensationalistic and perhaps bordering on clickbaity but the content is rock solid.

It's time for Wizards to back down on "deauthorizing" 1.0a. This path is going to lead to disaster.

TRILLIONS at Risk: The Strategy to DEFEAT Hasbro and WotC in their Attack on Open Licenses, DnD, OGL

"Perhaps bordering on clickbaity." You think? I know YouTubers do this to attract clicks, but I'm one of those folks who is actively deterred.