OGL and ORC; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[Ruin Explorer]

The revised GSL, released in early 2009, made no mention of the Open Game License whatsoever, as I recall.

Ahhh that must have been the reason for the revision and why we finally saw a trickle of 3PP material coming out.

Another great boneheaded self-own from WotC which they ended up backing down on.

 

[rcade]

Insofar as whether or not it's possible to publish a product under two difference licenses, we know that the answer to this is an unambiguous "yes." That's because we've seen it before, many times: during the d20 era, a lot of products were published under the Open Game License as well as the d20 Standard Trademark License (this latter license having the publishers agree to additional restrictions in exchange for being able to use the white-and-red d20 logo).

While it was possible to publish something under the OGL and the d20 STL, the only license that applied to Open Game Content was the OGL because of this part of Section 2: "No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."

Therefore a second license in an OGL-licensed work can only be applied to Product Identity or the parts of a work that are neither PI nor OGC.

 

[Voadam]

Didn't the GSL specifically forbid that lol or did the later GSL revision un-forbid it? Or did Kobold just give two fingers to the GSL?

The original gsl had a poison pull provision that would kill ogl use for a product line used under the gsl. The revised gsl did not have that provision. I assume kobold and Goodman and others only used the revised gsl.

Terms of the gsl are not in gsl products.

 

[rcade]

1.0a becomes a dead/legacy license. Old stuff that used it remains, but no new stuff comes from it.

There's a lot of OGL-licensed work that does not derive from anything published by Hasbro/WOTC. For this reason there will likely to be new works produced under OGL 1.0a even if Hasbro jackhammers the foundation of everything derived from its SRDs.

 

[Voadam]

There's a lot of OGL-licensed work that does not derive from anything published by Hasbro/WOTC. For this reason there will likely to be new works produced under OGL 1.0a even if Hasbro jackhammers the foundation of everything derived from its SRDs.

Wizard's position appears to be that the ogl is de-authorized so no new ogl stuff at all as the license is no longer operative and cannot be used to share ogc anymore. People can use their own original stuff but no longer share under the ogl. Even non srd based stuff.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wizard's position appears to be that the ogl is de-authorized so new ogl stuff at all as the license is no longer operative and cannot be used to share ogc anymore. People can use their own original stuff but no longer share under the ogl. Even non srd based stuff.

Are they going to go to court over that, though? Seems like there's no upside to doing so.

 

[rcade]

Wizard's position appears to be that the ogl is de-authorized so new ogl stuff at all as the license is no longer operative and cannot be used to share ogc anymore. People can use their own original stuff but no longer share under the ogl. Even non srd based stuff.

Hasbro/WOTC has no involvement in OGL-licensed works that did not use its SRDs. It isn't a part of those agreements.

There are a lot of stunts Hasbro can pull in an attempt to kill the OGL, but attacking the right of unrelated parties to make agreements with each other would be the toughest to achieve. Games like OpenD6 Fantasy -- released by West End Games under the OGL to free the community to continue its development -- are going to still be reusable.

 

[Alzrius]

Are they going to go to court over that, though? Seems like there's no upside to doing so.

The upside would be if they go to court and win a judgment in their favor, presumably.

 

[Alzrius]

Hasbro/WOTC has no involvement in OGL-licensed works that did not use its SRDs. It isn't a part of those agreements.

Their position is that they are part of those agreements, because they own the OGL's copyright. Hence their purporting that they can revoke the license (though that remains iffy). In the event that they're right, they can refuse to let anyone else publish new material under the OGL v1.0a, whether it uses their SRDs or not.

If two companies want to create deals with each other outside of the OGL's framework, that's something that Hasbro has no say in.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The upside would be if they go to court and win a judgment in their favor, presumably.

No responsible lawyer would take that case. WotC has nothing meaningful to gain, and probably couldn't even claim damages. I'm not sure, at this point, WotC would even definitely have standing to bring that case in first place, in fact. That'd be the first battle there - proving you had standing to interfere in that.

 

[Alzrius]

No responsible lawyer would take that case. WotC has nothing meaningful to gain, and probably couldn't even claim damages. I'm not sure, at this point, WotC would even definitely have standing to bring that case in first place, in fact. That'd be the first battle there - proving you had standing to interfere in that.

I'd presume that something published under a license that they (WotC) own would give them standing, presuming that they're maintaining that the OGL v1.0a is revoked and someone else is continuing to use it. Given that they own the license's copyright, presumably they'd claim that their work was being reproduced without authorization, since you have to print a copy of the OGL in any work that uses it.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'd presume that something published under a license that they (WotC) own would give them standing, presuming that they're maintaining that the OGL v1.0a is revoked and someone else is continuing to use it.

I don't think that's guaranteed.

Given that they own the license's copyright, presumably they'd claim that their work was being reproduced without authorization, since you have to print a copy of the OGL in any work that uses it.

Yeah it'd be interesting to see how that worked out for them.

They'd have incredible problems claiming there were any damages to them, and the court REALLY DOES NOT LIKE IT when you aren't able to show actual damage. Could they get an order telling you to stop it? Maybe, but even then I'm not completely convinced, and it's a lot to risk, because if they lose, they just completely and totally screwed themselves.

 

[Voadam]

Are they going to go to court over that, though? Seems like there's no upside to doing so.

Hasbro/WOTC has no involvement in OGL-licensed works that did not use its SRDs. It isn't a part of those agreements.

There are a lot of stunts Hasbro can pull in an attempt to kill the OGL, but attacking the right of unrelated parties to make agreements with each other would be the toughest to achieve. Games like OpenD6 Fantasy -- released by West End Games under the OGL to free the community to continue its development -- are going to still be reusable.

WotC's position from the FAQ is that the OGL, the license is de-authorized. Not their SRD as OGC under the license.

If they don't stop the OGL entirely with de-authorization, they don't stop 5e OGC from continuing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If they don't stop the OGL entirely with de-authorization, they don't stop 5e OGC from continuing.

They're already past that.

5E-compatible products will keep getting made. In lesser numbers, maybe, but they'll keep going. People will try it without a licence.

Sheesh, it might even be a big boy like, say, Chris Metzen, who created an entire 5E-compatible setting basically as a vanity project, and has a net worth in excess of $10m.

Or it'll be people in non-US jurisdictions there the courts are even less likely to buy what WotC is selling.

 

[Voadam]

They're already past that.

5E-compatible products will keep getting made. In lesser numbers, maybe, but they'll keep going. People will try it without a licence.

Sheesh, it might even be a big boy like, say, Chris Metzen, who created an entire 5E-compatible setting basically as a vanity project, and has a net worth in excess of $10m.

Or it'll be people in non-US jurisdictions there the courts are even less likely to buy what WotC is selling.

A few people trying to figure out how to work around copyright derivative work issues is not something I believe they think is a big deal. They can still threaten to sue things that cross the line or come close and make threats about their claimed IP as TSR did, which will suppress even more the small number who go without a safe harbor.

Killing the OGL kills a big publishing industry of legally compatible royalty free licensed products with low entry barriers all at once going forward.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They can still threaten to sue things that cross the line or come close and make threats about their claimed IP as TSR did, which will suppress even more the small number who go without a safe harbor.

Not without huge reputational risks.

It's amazing to me just how many of you people are stuck in 1990 when it comes to the way the world works.

What, EXACTLY do you think is going to happen, when WotC sends a threatening letter to some small-but-popular 3PP? Seriously what do YOU think is going to happen?

In 1990, yeah, sure that would have worked well, there was no way to publicise it, and no-one would have cared anyway, and even if they did, they couldn't have helped.

In 2023, on the other hand, that C&D will IMMEDIATELY end up on the internet, and literally hundreds of people will be trying to make clicks off it. And none of those clicks will be in WotC's favour. People will demand WotC answer as to why they did this, and this whole outrage cycle we're having right now? It'll kick off again. People who've gone back to Beyond will start cancelling accounts again. People will stop buying WotC products for a while. WotC's reputation will get even lower. Eventually they're going to end up as the "EA of the TTRPG industry" if they do stuff like this.

 

[glass]

(IANAL, the following is not legal advice.)

Can you simultaneously license the same material under 2 different licenses, especially if those licenses have very different views of access and obligation? I don't know.

License as in "release"? Sure. If you own the copyright, you can license it any way(s) you want. License as in "use stuff other people have released"? Only if the licences are compatible (that is, only if it is possible to simultaneously comply with both sets of terms).

Yes, although I am not sure how they square that.

AIUI, there is no problem with their releasing it under both licences. They own it, they can do what they like with it. A licensee using FATE material would probably need to pick one or the other, though.

OneD&D = Evergreen Edition

Does anyone actually believe that? 5e was supposed to be "evergreen" too, but we are still getting a new edition in 2024.

 

[Dreamscape]

No responsible lawyer would take that case.

I think I see the flaw here.

 

[pemerton]

Can you simultaneously license the same material under 2 different licenses, especially if those licenses have very different views of access and obligation? I don't know.

As long as they own the rights to every single scrap of material enclosed within themselves (or have permission from someone that does), releasing the same thing under two wildly different licenses is fine. It's then the choice of anyone reusing which of those licences they are using it under and to pass on to their audience (or potentially both again, if they can say the same about their own product)

What Matt Thomason said.

You can do whatever you want with your property, provided you don't violate any obligation in doing so. If you've made a contractual promise about how you will licence your work (eg because you're relying on someone else's licence which imposes that sort of condition, such as the OGL v 1.0/1.0a) then if you break the promise you'll be liable to a lawsuit.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Eventually they're going to end up as the "EA of the TTRPG industry" if they do stuff like this.

I think this is the crux of the issue for the disagreements we are seeing here on the boards-- whether or not being the "EA of the TTRPG industry" is actually a bad thing from HasbrotC's point of view?

Because sure EA's reputation sucks with the hardcore players within the industry... but they have and will continue to dominate the market. So what has that loss of face actually cost EA? It sure hasn't been money these past 40 years they've been in existence.

For all we know... HasbrotC is banking on their new 3DVTT system to so dominate the online roleplaying sphere that the loss of all the OGL people will be small potatoes compared to the influx of new players they expect to capture. A risk? Sure. We all have no idea whether this new program of theirs will actually work worth a damn. But if it does? Then there's quite the potential for all the bad rep they garnered from revoking the OGL not amounting to a hill of beans when all is said and done.

Of course, if HasbrotC botches their 3DVTT release? Then all bets are off and woe be to they in the company who will be beholden to answer to the shareholders.