Fate also uses the Creative Commons License, so changes to the OGL won't really have any effect on Fate.Are you absolutely sure about that?
A lot og games you might expect aren't connected to it actually are, like FATE.
Can we maybe not advocate for DDoS attacks?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
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:
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.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."
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.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
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.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.
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?But people very clearly are contributing to WotC. I mean, that's precisely why they're the successful 900 lb gorilla that they are.
Unlike many creators and small publishers that could be wiped out by the license "update", WotC is absolutely not suffering financially by the current OGL. Arguably, WotC's immense success is largely because of the OGL1.0 and the creators it has enabled, not despite it.
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.I'm having a conversation with my best friend deciding if stopping to use our 5e content and using 5e as our system is the ''good'' thing to do (knowing full well that it wont change a thing for anyone but us).
I fear dropping D&D will just cause my group to stop playing 'cause they dont want to try new things.
What a dilemma!
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.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
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?Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.
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?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.
Yes.Or is the problem that it then is not part of the license?
Presentation.If so, why not have an SRD that is just OGC and keep the PI out if it?
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.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
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.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.