My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[Scribe]

Pathfinder happened.

WOTC assumed during 4e, that the community would migrate through editions. But many didn't and the OGL let them move to another game. So bad that they had to go back to the OGL with 5e.

They don't want that to happen with the VTT and other future financial projects.

WOTC should just be honest that it is their fear

That sure would be nice.

 

[Haplo781]

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!

Cool - so everyone publish out of the principality of Sealand.

 

[Yaarel]

I suspect Hasbro-WotC intends to abuse the term "infringement", rather than hatespeech.

The reference to hatespeech in the morality clause is a red herring to distract.

Meanwhile, without OGL 1.0a, anything is vulnerable to the unilatetal accusation of "infringement", without recourse, justice, or due process.

 

[pemerton]

Dear Australian gamers,

Do that right now. Get a "declaration" to nullify any Hasbo-WotC attempt to "de-authorize".

A declaration of right doesn't "nullify" anything. It does what it says on the tin. And as I posted upthread, a quick Google confirmed my suspicion that it is also available in US law.

"Australian games" don't have standing to sue WotC anymore than anyone else does.

 

[pemerton]

WOTC should just be honest that it is their fear

They've got a range of concerns. They're not hiding them, and I think most of us can see what they are.

It's not normal for large commercial entities to make their commercial planning public. I don't think WotC is likely to break this pattern.

It's also not helpful to the discussion to talk about "lying" or "deception", at least in my view. That doesn't actually help anyone understand what WotC is attempting to do, nor what rights they might have against WotC, nor even what an improved draft of an OGL might look like.

 

[pemerton]

A question: Is section 9 (using any authorized license) meaningful other than for new products that use OGC? There is no need to choose a license for existing products. Those seem to have their license already set.

If you use OGC that you are licensed to use, section 9 entitles you to license your work that includes OGC (others', maybe also yours) using the terms of any authorised variant. There is a question as to what makes a licence having different terms a variant of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. I've posted a bit about this in some other threads. My view is that the new licences that WotC has been putting forward don't count, even though WotC is labelling them with OGL version numbers. The status of a contract as a variant doesn't turn on the label WotC uses to describe it, but what its legal operation and effect is.

 

[pemerton]

This is why I think the release to CC is a bigger deal than people have been making of it. Even at the limited degree currently announced, it makes D&D truly free, not beholden to SRDs or licenses administrated by Wizards, or the vagaries of court rulings in potential lawsuits.

I don't know much about CC. What stops someone who releases work under CC subsequently retracting and refusing to enter into new licences?

 

[Myrdin Potter]

(Reposting from another thread) Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.

 

[Clint_L]

Building on that, they should consider letting some "branded" products be sold on DnDBeyond, for a royalty. That would make DnDBeyond even better, generate another revenue stream for WotC, and give 3PP access to a huge market.

I mentioned this in another thread, but one reason that I don't buy more 3PP is because I rely on DDB so much when running my games, so material that isn't integrated into it is a pain (particularly monsters, spells, and magic items).

 

[Myrdin Potter]

pemerton is giving straightforward answers. There is a huge thread with multiple lawyers discussing the OGL and many answers were similar to what he has said here.

I think that many people are mistaking the arguments a litigator would be making vs. a lawyer that is reading contract clauses.

A litigator would be appealing to fairness and justice and arguing what the contract means in that context. Calling WoTC liars might be a tactic there as it might sway a judge/jury.

A cold read of the written text does not have that element.

Maybe the perpetual word in the OGL means it is also evergreen - always being offered. But maybe there are no words that prevent WoTC from simply revoking the offer so it is not available anymore. Theirs litigator would then appeal to commercial fairness as they have not said people that took up their offer when it was open should be punished and they could argue that they have a new offer that is almost as good so no real harm is happening.