New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[mamba]

As much as I despise NFTs, excluding them from the OGL would just give Hasbro exclusive rights to create them. And I'd be surprised if they haven't already thought about that.

I have no problem with that

 

[delericho]

At this point I think two things are necessary. Then there's a third thing they could optionally do:

1) "We're sorry, we screwed up. The Open Gaming License was always intended to be irrevocable, and we respect that fully. We apologize for the weeks and months of confusion and concern that this has caused to the community and our partners." And a statement that, of course, both previous versions of the OGL remain in place and can be used freely.

2) An updated OGL that tightens up the language to make it irrevocable, so we don't have to face this sort of thing next time there's a change in leadership, and which makes no other changes - no fees, no reporting, no restrictions on types of products. They can't even have an anti-bigotry clause, because they've clearly shown they cannot be trusted not to try to exploit any loopholes.

3 (optional)) They can then have whatever additional license they want for their new edition. Just don't call it the OGL. And don't expect anyone in their right minds to use it.

 

[Xethreau]

Besides the terms of the OGL 1.0b, WotC must also restore legacy information on the OGL to their website, including the FAQ and the SRDs for 3e, 3.5, and 5e. As I understand they are being removed---and we cannot proceed in good faith as it stands.

 

[Olrox17]

At this point I think two things are necessary. Then there's a third thing they could optionally do:

1) "We're sorry, we screwed up. The Open Gaming License was always intended to be irrevocable, and we respect that fully. We apologize for the weeks and months of confusion and concern that this has caused to the community and our partners." And a statement that, of course, both previous versions of the OGL remain in place and can be used freely.

2) An updated OGL that tightens up the language to make it irrevocable, so we don't have to face this sort of thing next time there's a change in leadership, and which makes no other changes - no fees, no reporting, no restrictions on types of products. They can't even have an anti-bigotry clause, because they've clearly shown they cannot be trusted not to try to exploit any loopholes.

3 (optional)) They can then have whatever additional license they want for their new edition. Just don't call it the OGL. And don't expect anyone in their right minds to use it.

I agree with the first 2 points fully. They are non-negotiable.

Now, to further elaborate on the third point, how could we make their new license appealing, or at least usable?

• they can keep royalties (maybe a lesser or more incremental amount) and revenue reporting
• absolutely no way for WotC to use your content for free. If they want to use your content, they'll have to pay YOU royalties. Or contact you to get a custom deal.
• absolutely no way for WotC to change or terminate the license. If they want, they can make a new version of the license, and publishers can freely choose to use the new one or the old one.
• if they want to keep software and NFT out of the license, sure, whatever.
• publishers that agree to the license (and are thus paying royalties) have free access and full integration to the new official D&D VTT.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I hope they just bring out something to end the rumors and uncertanity.

I do think though that some people feel entitled... after all, wotc created the d20 version of DnD and it is their good right and in their interest to do money and forbid the misuse of their IP.

So. I think they should make it clear, that 1.0a is irrevocable so that no current business is in hazard. What they do after that is their business.
But then, in the best interest of making money, they should be wary of making dumb OGLs.

 

[delericho]

I agree with the first 2 points fully. They are non-negotiable.

Now, to further elaborate on the third point, how could we make their new license appealing, or at least usable?

Honestly, I'm not at all bothered what conditions WotC want to put in their new license, or even if they decide not to have a license for OneD&D at all. That's their prerogative.

My objections are entirely about their attempt to revoke a license that was always intended to be irrevocable, and especially their attempts to bully their competition into accepting this horrible new license. I just want that fixed, please.

 

[Branduil]

I hope they just bring out something to end the rumors and uncertanity.

I do think though that some people feel entitled... after all, wotc created the d20 version of DnD and it is their good right and in their interest to do money and forbid the misuse of their IP.

So. I think they should make it clear, that 1.0a is irrevocable so that no current business is in hazard. What they do after that is their business.
But then, in the best interest of making money, they should be wary of making dumb OGLs.

The only actor demonstrating entitlement here is WotC. They authored a license which has been tremendously beneficial to them, but now their shareholders are upset they aren't profiting enough from other people's labor, so now they plan to abuse their financial power to violate the plain meaning of the license and, essentially, steal from the rest of the industry in a massive power play.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only actor demonstrating entitlement here is WotC. They authored a license which has been tremendously beneficial to them, but now their shareholders are upset they aren't profiting enough from other people's labor, so now they plan to abuse their financial power to violate the plain meaning of the license and, essentially, steal from the rest of the industry in a massive power play.

I don't disagree that pulling the rug under 3PP creators is not a good move.

But tell me how they profited from Pathfinder 1 using the OGL? Tell mebhow they profit from people using the OGL to create NFTs.

So while I do think that the OGL is mutually beneficial to all in most regards, I can understand why wotc does want to get some control back.

Wanting an OGL 1.0b with nothing else in return is entitled.
And even here, I think it would be a wise move for wotc to assure people using OGL 1.0 that there is no trapdoor under their rug.

I

 

[Guest 7034872]

For myself, I don't need any public apologies or effusive prose about "doing better," as I generally don't like to let my emotions into these sorts of considerations. What I do need to see is a clear, unequivocal course correction whereby the update on which they settle veers strongly away from the leaked document.

I think Umbran's suggestions cover pretty well the substantive changes I'd consider ideal. If they feel the need to claw back control of their IP from Pathfinder et al, I might not like how they do that, but it's their IP, not mine, so some unhappy consequences are things I'd live with. An awful lot does depend on how they do it, though, right?

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

NFTs are just a place to put artwork.

If people want to throw money at NFTs that is their business. (Heh, it wont be me.)

Not quite, NFTs are a place to put receipts for artwork. The actual art still has to be stored on a server somewhere. There are plenty of failed NFT collections that now only contain dead links.