It's better. It's certainly better. But it's still not good. These are suggestions I would make for their feedback survey.
Revocability. It says it's irrevocable, but it's not -- while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is 'harmful' or 'obscene' at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen.
The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."
Will they? They say they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they say doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text.
I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their own content recently).
Termination. Linked to revocation, above. The text says "We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."
Who decides whether we have infringed any of their intellectual property? Them, presumably? What do they consider infringement? What if I consider it fair use? I can't go to the courts for resolution; it says so right there. Violate any law? If I speed to get to a company meeting to discuss the content of our next book, can they immeidately terminate the license? This stuff is all too vague.
OGL v1.0a. They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.
Good stuff? Is there good stuff? Well, there's an absence of some of the leaked bad stuff. But the bad stuff already isn't in OGL v1.0a, so 'not doing bad stuff' is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that's good. Not being able to change it at-will, that's good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say 'good'; I just mean 'not bad'.
Works covered. It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers "printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)". What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it's managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then.
Creative Commons. Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that sounds generous, but it's actually a reduction in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid).
So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form.
Revocability. It says it's irrevocable, but it's not -- while WotC can terminate your license at any time (they just say your content is 'harmful' or 'obscene' at their discretion, and you cannot even challenge them about it), it is still revocable at their whim. They can put an OGL publisher out of business with the flick of a pen.
The key phrase is -- "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."
Will they? They say they won't. But they also said to us they wouldn't revoke the OGL v1.0a., and now they're trying to. So what they say doesn't matter--all that matters is that legal text.
I applaud the desire to keep bigotry and hateful content away from our hobby. It's something I work hard to do, too. We know NuTSR is out there, doing that stuff, and I understand why WotC wouldn't want them within a million miles of their brand. But a single company can't be the one to decide the fate of another. That decision would be better made by some kind of arbitrary panel made up of people not involved in that dispute. Not WotC (which, let's face it, has made some big misteps regarding their own content recently).
Termination. Linked to revocation, above. The text says "We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f)."
Who decides whether we have infringed any of their intellectual property? Them, presumably? What do they consider infringement? What if I consider it fair use? I can't go to the courts for resolution; it says so right there. Violate any law? If I speed to get to a company meeting to discuss the content of our next book, can they immeidately terminate the license? This stuff is all too vague.
OGL v1.0a. They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.
Good stuff? Is there good stuff? Well, there's an absence of some of the leaked bad stuff. But the bad stuff already isn't in OGL v1.0a, so 'not doing bad stuff' is a low bar. No royalties, no ownership issues, that's good. Not being able to change it at-will, that's good (but they can still just take it away from you). I say 'good'; I just mean 'not bad'.
Works covered. It needs clarity on web pages. Right now it covers "printed media and static electronic files (such as epubs or pdfs)". What about a web page with game content on it? Is that a static electronic file? Probably not, if it's managed by some kind of content management system or database. They claimed this was about NFTs. Well, make it about NFTs then.
Creative Commons. Eh. They already gave all that away and more under the original OGL. I feel like that sounds generous, but it's actually a reduction in the amount of freely available content (if you accept that the recovation of 1.0a is valid).
So, it's better, but it's still fundamentally flawed IMO. This would be my suggestion for their feedback form.
