My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[eyeheartawk]

This is an important point (one of many) which tends to get overlooked. This is world-wide hobby, though much of the discussion we're seeing is US- and UK-centric (with a smattering of the EU and the antipodes). I have no idea what, if anything, is being said about this in the Far East.

One has to assume that any corporation wanting to maxi-monetise their product has to be looking at the China* market. It is well-documented what happens to what the US and Europe consider inclusive content when it is marketed to China. What is considered "harmful" by the Chinese authorities is not what anyone on these boards would concur with.

* For China, always read "the CCP".

The Chinese government would certainly find skeletons objectionable morally. Which is a common D&D antagonist and based on that, boom you could be gone.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

They are? I didn't see that in the January 19th announcement or the OGL 1.2 draft that I recall. Did I miss something?

 

[Voadam]

What an absolute mess.

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.

I expect they minorly want people supporting their current edition under their license.

I suspect they care little about the past editions and OSR. I expect they figure people who want to share can, if not then not, no skin off their nose either way. Any OSR that continues under 1.2 will be under the morality clause and they can terminate undesirables.

They seem much more interested in stopping people at their morality clause discretion from putting out stuff they don't like.

 

[Voadam]

They are? I didn't see that in the January 19th announcement or the OGL 1.2 draft that I recall. Did I miss something?

Yes, I think it was a DnD Beyond follow up tweet or such. I don't have a link handy. They said they wanted to get the important stuff out first for discussion of the core terms.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

What an absolute mess.

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.

I don't think they're very interested in anyone using this license in particular, no. They want the big players to beg them for secret deals, I think. That was what they tried to do initially, wasn't it?

 

[eyeheartawk]

I don't think they're very interested in anyone using this license in particular, no. They want the big players to beg them for secret deals, I think. That was what they tried to initially, wasn't it?

I think that was door-in-the-face technique in action there. How much money are they really gonna get from that? I think the license is just "good enough" that they can semi-seriously claim they made an attempt. I think it's just a naked attempt to claw back stuff as IP that was open previously and define the terms on competitor VTTs.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, I think it was a DnD Beyond follow up tweet or such. I don't have a link handy. They said they wanted to get the important stuff out first for discussion of the core terms.

Okay, I think this is the tweet in question:


As it is, this is a nice nod in the right direction, but that's all. And given WotC's growing pattern of broken promises, I'm having some trouble finding that to be reassuring.

 

[pemerton]

Can you get injunctive relief in preparation for a lawsuit seeking a declaration of right?

I'm not a litigator. But my intuition is "no", because the purpose of an interlocutory injunction typically is to preserve the status quo to prevent the injuncted party from changing the "facts on the ground" so as to defeat the practical utility of a remedy. And someone seeking purely declaratory relief is not seeking any further remedy.

Can multiple plaintiffs band together to do this, in Washington and against WotC specifically? How can I get standing to join such an attempt? (And where do I send the money if I can't???)

I know nothing about the relevant law in Washington State. You'd need to consult a Washington litigator about how litigation works in that state. But as for standing, are you a party to the OGL v 1.0a? That is what would give you standing, at least under typical common law rules.

 

[Alzrius]

But as for standing, are you a party to the OGL v 1.0a? That is what would give you standing, at least under typical common law rules.

For clarification, being a "party" to the OGL v1.0a means that you've released content under it, right? So something like this recent blog post of mine would count?

 

[pemerton]

Illegality part as well as there are a ton of laws in the world.

I'd be surprised if there aren't some reasonably well-established principles for interpreting this provision. I don't think that if you are publishing in (say) the UK then WotC (which is based in Washington State) can point to the illegality of your content in (say) Russia as a basis for interpretation.

To me, the real issue here seems to be that illegal conduct by a publisher is grounds for termination. I hope all those 3PPs are filing their tax returns properly!