My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[pemerton]

For clarification, being a "party" to the OGL v1.0a means that you've released content under it, right?

I am meaning that you a party to a licensing agreement with WotC on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0a.

So something like this recent blog post of mine would count?

I'm not giving you legal advice.

In that blog post, you purport to enter into a licence agreement with WotC in terms of the OGL v 1.0a. I can't say whether or not you've succeeded. Speaking purely as an anonymous commentator, and not giving any legal advice, you might check whether your declarations at the top of your blog really conform to the requirements that need to be met in order to enter into a licence with WotC in terms of the OGL v 1.0a.

 

[Clint_L]

I think there is a lot of speculation about WotC's motives which is adding some confusion because I think each of us has our pet thesis in this regard. That said, here's mine:

With regards to the "morality clause" I tend to agree with Snarf Zagyg that this is really about protecting brand identity. I also don't think that Hasbro particularly feels threatened by the small publishers of the 3PP ecosystem; I think they have largely been collateral damage. The comment about international markets, particularly China, is relevant, though I doubt Hasbro would see your 3PP book with skeletons in it as "harmful" to their brand - it would either get banned in China or it wouldn't, and nothing to do with them.

With regards to this giving a back door to Hasbro to arbitrarily designate publishers "harmful" and thus shut them down without legal recourse, I would love for a lawyer to weigh in. My initial thought is that Hasbro would likely be on shaky legal ground if they couldn't prove a reasonable process for determining that a 3PP is "harmful" (i.e. they couldn't just wield "harmful" as a blunt instrument against competitors). But I can also see how this would be expensive to litigate and so even having the threat out there is chilling. Again, not a lawyer, so my thoughts on this are worth what they are worth (possibly not much).

 

[overgeeked]

This makes me wonder if Wizards' actually wants anyone to use this license. It seems to me, that if you have to "republish" under a new license anyway, why not use ORC or similar as the viral sublicensing nature of that license makes things easier for everybody.

Have they released a draft of ORC yet? Do we know it will have viral sublicensing?

 

[Voadam]

I'd be surprised if there aren't some reasonably well-established principles for interpreting this provision.

I couldn't say without research. Not my area of law. Thus potential issue.

 

[Alzrius]

Speaking purely as an anonymous commentator, and not giving any legal advice, you might check whether your declarations at the top of your blog really conform to the requirements that need to be met in order to enter into a licence with WotC in terms of the OGL v 1.0a.

I should hope so, as I mostly just word-for-word copied other published (for profit) OGL products and then tweaked the language a little!

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

But as for standing, are you a party to the OGL v 1.0a?

I think so.

The Oglebogle v1.0 - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[pemerton]

Is this true?

So all the talk about having to "reauthorize" used open gaming content that was in OGL 1.0a into OGL 1.2 is moot anyway?

Under this license people can publish their original stuff under 1.2 and people can license each other separately to use stuff.

They are saying they will put out the 3e SRDs as well under 1.2 so you can make stuff derived from that under 1.2, but there is no direct provision allowing using of OGC.

So Matt Finch could put out the OSRIC and S&W systems that he created under 1.2. He could also put out an agreement for others to use it in their products. If those both don't happen there is no authorization to keep making products using those OGC elements under 1.2.

Also, if anyone in your chain of OGC for a product does not republish under 1.2 and put out separate authorization to use it then there is no authorization to put that product out using that OGC under 1.2. So if Frog God wants to put out Rappan Athuk S&W under the 1.2, that is partially dependent on Matt Finch.

Section 5b of the OGL v 2 says that

You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license.​

This seems to allow someone to publish a book in which (say) the stats of a creature from Mongoose Traveller (licensed under the OGL v 1.0a) are compared to the stats of a similar creature in D&D (published pursuant to OGL v 1.2).

I don't see how it lets Matt Finch publish OSRIC or S&W under v 1.2, given that those are not modifications of WotC licensed content, but probably are derivative of WotC unlicensed content.

 

[pemerton]

I should hope so, as I mostly just word-for-word copied other published (for profit) OGL products and then tweaked the language a little!

I can't tell what your OGC is, because you define it by reference to things that I can't identify in your product (plots, trademarks, etc). Maybe that's just me.

 

[Voadam]

With regards to this giving a back door to Hasbro to arbitrarily designate publishers "harmful" and thus shut them down without legal recourse, I would love for a lawyer to weigh in. My initial thought is that Hasbro would likely be on shaky legal ground if they couldn't prove a reasonable process for determining that a 3PP is "harmful" (i.e. they couldn't just wield "harmful" as a blunt instrument against competitors). But I can also see how this would be expensive to litigate and so even having the threat out there is chilling. Again, not a lawyer, so my thoughts on this are worth what they are worth (possibly not much).

I am not providing legal advice and I am not a contracts or IP lawyer.

"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."

So first, licensees have contractually agreed not to challenge any hateful determination. WotC can try to get licensee challengers thrown out of court before any substance is brought up.

Second "sole right to decide" is pretty open for them.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Have they released a draft of ORC yet? Do we know it will have viral sublicensing?

No.

Admittedly, that's an assumption on my part.