So how do we respond?
- Thread starter Olgar Shiverstone
- Start date
Also I just remembered from the last time I was in a community where we had a big problem like this (The Skyrim Paid Workshop drama, for those who know), there are websites out there that let you send faxes to numbers at no charge to yourself
Now, I'm not saying find these webites and send quite a few faxes to WotC over the weekend to make your opposition to what they're doing absolutely clear. I'm also not saying "Hey, there are ways to absolutely flood a fax machine and waste the ink, causing more income wasted on that behalf"
But I am saying that people definitely did do that during the Skyrim mod debacle, and doing so was probably one of the reasons Valve had to respond in downright quick speeds to that
Now, I'm not saying find these webites and send quite a few faxes to WotC over the weekend to make your opposition to what they're doing absolutely clear. I'm also not saying "Hey, there are ways to absolutely flood a fax machine and waste the ink, causing more income wasted on that behalf"
But I am saying that people definitely did do that during the Skyrim mod debacle, and doing so was probably one of the reasons Valve had to respond in downright quick speeds to that
Aldarc
Legend
Fate also uses the Creative Commons License, so changes to the OGL won't really have any effect on Fate.
Clint_L
Hero
Can we maybe not advocate for DDoS attacks?
I checked out the text of that license, and it looks significantly worse than OGL 1.0a. It contains the same maybe-a-loophole that Wizards is currently trying to exploit (the absence of the word "irrevocable"), and it also contains a clause forbidding the following:
"Racist, homophobic, discriminatory, or other repugnant views; overt political agendas or views; depictions or descriptions of criminal violence against children; rape or other acts of criminal perversion; or other obscene material."
Even though I agree with many of the goals of this clause, it absolutely does not belong in an open license; in the hands of a bad actor such as Hasbro has just demonstrated itself to be, it could be abused in any number of ways.
Turns out that it's rather tricky to write an open gaming license that is both truly open and legally rock solid.
mamba
Hero
I am not sure that makes it significantly worse, that just means the creator of the original IP does not want their game to be dragged into controversial topics and have the reputation tarnished.
Sounds like good reasons to revoke the license
For a generic open license the following is more problematic
“The Work must include the phrase “Compatible with the Cypher System” or the “Compatible with the Cypher System” logo on the cover of the Work.”
What constitutes "repugnant" views? What is an "overt political agenda?" Think of this clause in the hands of, say, NuTSR, and imagine them wielding the power to make these decisions about your game.
An open license is open. That means you have to be okay with the idea that people are gonna publish stuff you won't like. If you're not okay with that, you shouldn't attach your name to an open license.
(And this, by the way, is why Wizards chose to separate the OGL from the d20 STL, and put all the stuff granting access to trademarks and logos and compatibility notices in the latter.)
mamba
Hero
I understand where you are coming from, but as I said, having to say that your product is for the Cypher system is a much bigger issue for a truly open license.
Look at it this way: how much of the OGL licensed content could live with the former but not the latter…
Ultimately why reinvent the wheel at all, use CC-BY-SA, that seems to be what the OGL intended to be. Just leave your PI out of what you license under it, much like it is not covered under the OGL
SteveC
Doing the best imitation of myself
I think this is the point. I was just on Amazon and I see that the D&D PHB is #125 in all books right now. Why would that be the case? What is WotC doing to bring people into gaming at the moment compared to the dozens of people streaming games and talking about dungeons and dragons. If you took away the third party people who are incredibly enthusiastic about the game, what do you have? It has been a long time since WotC actively participated and made content to bring people into gaming. Do they still have anything to do with Acquisitions Inc?
I'm not the target market for D&D anymore, that's been pretty clear to me for some time now, but the people who do interact with it as a lifestyle are doing so through the exact people who will be negatively affected. Maybe WotC has plans to bring in new streamers, but when I think about this, I just have a "hi there, fellow gamers!" sort of meme in my head.
And for what it's worth: I had been planning on picking up DandDone and if my online group used the WotC service to play, I would have subscribed to that too just to keep playing. That online group, who are the target market, is unhappy right now and talking about other games.
Just my two cents, but I wouldn't get hung up on this. You can keep playing 5E forever without giving Hasbro a dime; whatever tiny contribution you make to sustaining the "mindshare" of D&D is not worth worrying about.
If you stop buying anything from Wizards, and let them know you're doing that and why, that will send the message you want to send. (Particularly if you have an existing DDB subscription and cancel it -- that proves you are a current customer who really does feel strongly enough to become an ex-customer.)
JonM
Explorer
Try pasting this into every comment box, on their surveys:
"Until WotC discontinues their attempt to close the Open Game License and cause irreparable harm to the RPG community, I will no longer be supporting this playtest, OneD&D, or any other WotC endeavors."
And, if you really want to drive it home, pick Very Dissatisfied for every rating choice.
"Until WotC discontinues their attempt to close the Open Game License and cause irreparable harm to the RPG community, I will no longer be supporting this playtest, OneD&D, or any other WotC endeavors."
And, if you really want to drive it home, pick Very Dissatisfied for every rating choice.
Hex08
Hero
If the new version of the OGL upsets you, and there is every reason it should, then stop buying and playing D&D and let Hasbro know. Honestly though, I doubt it will matter. People who follow this stuff are in the minority and Hasbro won't miss those who jump ship. Most people play their games without following all of the online chatter.
Many others and I jumped ship when Pathfinder came out rather than switch to 4E and D&D kept on growing.
Many others and I jumped ship when Pathfinder came out rather than switch to 4E and D&D kept on growing.
Yaarel
Mind Mage
The OGL is useful because the agreement itself distinguishes the Property Identity that one keeps for oneself versus the Open Gaming Content that one grants to the public.
Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.
mhd
Adventurer
Is this so much different from the old "You're allowed to copy the char sheets on page 33/34?" So you'd just say that your book is CC-BY-SA, expect the artwork and the spell and monster names in Appendix A and B?
mamba
Hero
I am not sure. I get the need for the distinction, but could I not say ‘this is licensed under … and this other part is not’ in the document itself? Or is the problem that it then is not part of the license?
If so, why not have an SRD that is just OGC and keep the PI out if it?
imo there are ways around the PI issue when using a CC license, I agree that the distinction is needed in some form
Branduil
Hero
At this point, for me the only acceptable response from WotC is a true update to the OGL, with the only changes being
- Adding the word "irrevocable"
- Transferring ownership of the OGL to a neutral foundation made up of open-source advocates
Yaarel
Mind Mage
Yes.
Presentation.
For the SRD it might work. But when using the license in a marketable gaming product, it becomes trickier.
A gaming product for players to use, needs to integrate everything seemlessly in an appealing experience − both SRD and PI together.
License agreement needs to call attention to the fact that some parts remain protected and unavailable.
Fine, but then it's not an open license. It places ill-defined and context-dependent restrictions on what the user can do, so it can't be safely used.
TheSword
Legend
Nothing in life is safe or guaranteed. Plenty of people have opportunistic businesses without guarantees. In fact there are lots of contracts that renew yearly or are subject to termination at either parties request.
An unrevocable, unfettered, completely open license to use someone else’s IP would actually be a pretty terrible thing. ‘Open’ to all sorts of abuse.
Similar Threads
