New OGL - what would be acceptable? (+)

[Composer99]

Not sure I follow you. I'm suggesting the the SRD can be more restrictive in it's use than the general OGL as defined by the SRD. IE. The general OGL doesn't have any specifics about royalties, but the SRD includes language that to use it, you must agree to report revenue to Wizards and that at certain revenue levels you pay a royalty.

I don't think outlining what's permissible under the terms of the license is the role of the SRD. Certainly not stuff like royalties or reporting.

 

[Reynard]

This is a (+) thread. If you aren't interested in talking about what we'd find acceptable in a new license, please find another discussion.

We are talking a lot about what isn't acceptable. But, let us think in terms of a counter-offer.

1) No OGL is revoked. Create the OGL v1.0b - it is the same as v1.0a, but includes the extra words that make it clearly irrevocable. The SRD for 3e, 3.5, and 5e remain under the OGL (and now can be used under the irrevocable license).

2) The new license is the "OneD&D Open License", or somesuch. So, not actually a new version of the OGL. OneD&D may be released under the OD&DOL, so folks who want to work explicitly with OneD&D can do so, and can't revert it to OGL.

3) WotC can reserve rights to commercial videogames, software, movies, TV, novels and such. That's fair.
3a) Non-commercial software and media are allowed. Actual play programs are explicitly differentiated from other reserved media, and explicitly allowed.

4) WotC can have rights to some royalties from big players, but they are a percentage of profits, rather than percentage of revenue. That way, a runaway success product or new publisher can't accidentally find themselves taking a loss due to royalties.

What am I missing? I may take good suggestions from the thread and add them to the list above.

I can get on board with all of this.

I don't think WotC has any obligation to Open future material, but they should not attempt to Close existing material. Nor do I have an issue with them setting terms for supporting D&D. It's theirs.

That said, one thing i think a successful 1D&D license would need to be successful is an elimination of the registration and delivery requirement. It strikes me as onerous on all parties, WotC included, and could gum up the works if the intent is to continue to provide the kind of support the OGL, STL and GSL were actually designed for: making the stuff WotC doesn't find profitable enough but helps support D&D in the marketplace. But then I am not a business owner so I could be off base.

 

[mamba]

I don't think outlining what's permissible under the terms of the license is the role of the SRD. Certainly not stuff like royalties or reporting.

ah, now I get it, basically you would move the license terms out of the license (OGL) and into the text licensed under it (SRD / OGC). That does not work because then those terms are not part of the license and no one agreed to them even when using WotC’s SRD

 

[Umbran]

The issue is: at that point I stay with 1.0a/b and leave WotC behind (but do not boycott everything Hasbro at least ). I have no problem with that but I assume WotC does, so it kinda misses the point of the initial question. So if WotC wants me to stick with them / 1DD, it does indeed take what I wrote in my first post, a free, open, perpetual and unrevocable OGL 1.1

So, in this scenario, "you" are a player, or a 3pp?

As a 3pp, the proposed OGL v1.1 is hostile to you to begin with. It doesn't really look like WotC wants significant limits to 3pp presence in the market. I am not sure that WotC really cares at the moment if 3pp stick with D&D or not.

As a player, if, as proposed, OneD&D is close to 5e, then you don't really have to leave - you can buy and play OneD&D, but get support from 3pp publishing under 5e's open license. They still get your $$ for core books.

I think a useful goal here is licensing that the fans don't feel the need to run screaming away from OneD&D.

Also, out of curiosity, if there were a fork like that, do we have any idea where the 3PPs would fall? Stick with 1.0, move to 1.1, publish for both?

That depends on too many things outside the licensing - content and policy the license can't dictate. Like, what is OneD&D like? What are the policies around D&D Beyond, and how attractive is that platform? Do they produce a good VTT? None of those are, or should be, answered in a license.

 

[MoonSong]

A restriction that I have sympathy for would be the open license forbids bigotry.

Heh, but I wouldnt really trust other people to be in the position to decide what is or isnt bigoted.

So, I am unsure how a contract would approach that.

Look it from my perspective. I don't trust a bunch of overprivileged waspies to decide what parts of my culture are acceptable and which ones are biggoted. (A few years back there was an incident or two. The team here is top notch, and I got a good response from them, but I got nearly zero empathy from fellow enworldlers and this place is leagues ahead of the average people outside. ) I expect tons of selective enforcement and even fabrication of claims. The clause as shown is extremely vague and open for manipulation. A tool for control rather than a genuine well intentioned provision that will actually help people.

I mean, it is nice in paper, but who is going to enforce it?

 

[kenada]

I would like to see an OGL 1.0b that cleans up the ambiguities (e.g., regarding revocability). While I would like to see it do more to advance open gaming, section 9 would undermine any attempts to do that (because publishers could continue using 1.0a). I would also like to see the license’s copyright donated to a neutral party (such as an actual Open Gaming Foundation).

 

[Simplicity]

Well, they've got a bit of a problem on their hands now. In Dancey and OGL's case, it was made clear through their actions and statements that they were genuinely interested in creating an open framework for working with third parties. They listed the problems they had in the past, the reasons why they would want to do this, and said that they would make it so that no change of management would be able to swoop in and backstab all those third party players.

But now the new management has tipped their cards and revealed that that is not actually what they want at all. They want some licensees generating royalties for them with D&D under a plain license (not open at all). They want to rescind the old OGL. Why would anyone trust that a new license (non-OGL) would be something they should put faith in to base a business around? Why would they trust that Hasbro wouldn't just rescind it whenever their managers got some new scent in the wind.

They've really screwed up. I can't help but think that if they want third-party support, they will have to use the old OGL. Any new license would have to be incredibly ironclad language wise in the third party publishers favor.

 

[mamba]

So, in this scenario, "you" are a player, or a 3pp?

player

As a 3pp, the proposed OGL v1.1 is hostile to you to begin with. It doesn't really look like WotC wants significant limits to 3pp presence in the market. I am not sure that WotC really cares at the moment if 3pp stick with D&D or not.

ouch, well for this player there is a correlation between 3PPs being in the market and me being in it. I chose 5e for its ecosystem, not for WotC / the best rules

As a player, if, as proposed, OneD&D is close to 5e, then you don't really have to leave - you can buy and play OneD&D, but get support from 3pp publishing under 5e's open license. They still get your $$ for core books.

I agree, and I would buy those OGL books, but I am reluctant to support WotC at that point, so would not switch to 1DD. I do not feel very charitable to WotC / Hasbro right now, so them getting any of my money is an uphill battle for them. Quite a turn of events because until recently moving to OneD&D was a given

I can use those books with 5e just fine as well

 

[Umbran]

That said, one thing i think a successful 1D&D license would need to be successful is an elimination of the registration and delivery requirement. It strikes me as onerous on all parties, WotC included, and could gum up the works if the intent is to continue to provide the kind of support the OGL, STL and GSL were actually designed for: making the stuff WotC doesn't find profitable enough but helps support D&D in the marketplace. But then I am not a business owner so I could be off base.

So, registration doesn't have to be onerous. Reporting income/profit is a pain, I agree, but may be a requirement from WotC's perspective. I am willing to allow it if it is specific to OneD&D, because we are not likely to get everything we want, and we have to give somewhere.

I think we have to dispense with the notion that current WotC is actually looking for that kind of 3pp support from this. The v1.1 terms were too hostile for that to begin with. I expect that at best, the OGL to them is for amateurs, and real 3pp support, if any, will be handled by other, more specifically negotiated license agreements.

 

[Umbran]

They want some beholden vassals

Within this thread, at least, can we walk back on the emotionally loaded language please? Thanks.

Why would anyone trust that a new license (non-OGL) would be something they should put faith in to base a business around? Why would they trust that Hasbro wouldn't just rescind it whenever their managers got some new scent in the wind.

There are other, stable open licenses around, that have evolved in more competitive spaces than TTRPGs, so they have been more tested. WotC could mirror them, and use a license that they can't muck around with directly afterwards.