So how do we respond?

[MichaelSomething]

It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?

 

[Cadence]

Mike Shea posted his dungeons of Fate!

Dungeons of Fate

Updated 22 January 2023. Dungeons of Fate is a lightweight fantasy dungeon delving roleplaying game by Michael E. Shea based on Fate Condensed by Evil Hat Games. Download the PDF of Dungeons of Fate....

slyflourish.com

Is that the right link (it's dated 2014), or has it been unavailable?

 

[darjr]

Is that the right link (it's dated 2014), or has it been unavailable?

It's been out a while he just recently promoted it. I didn't know anything about it and I follow that hoopy frood.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?

That is the idea of a 'take over' sometimes a 'hostile take over' and I promise we can't do that. At least not unless we have more business' peeps here.

 

[payn]

It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?

Seems legit.

 

[Clint_L]

All I know is that there are a ton of rumours, but most of the actual lawyers weighing in are basically advising folks to cool their jets because there is way too limited information to draw strong conclusions at this point. My best friend, the guy I started playing D&D with 40+ years ago, is a partner at a big corporate law firm, and all our many conversations about law qualify me to say is that the law is complicated as hell and I am wise not to jump to any conclusions. (Also, two of the guys in my home group are lawyers but they are both crown prosecutors, so I doubt they would have much to say on this topic - anyhow, my point is that I am VERY uncomfortable making any assumptions because the one thing I have learned is that I don't know much about law).

 

[Scars Unseen]

So basically a thread where a lot of people who don’t spend much money with WOTC state how they aren’t going to spend any more money with WOTC, and explain why they don’t need to, urging other people to do the same…

… and we wonder why WOTC wants to revise the license situation?

I want to spend money on WotC. I want the game to be in a state where it's a game I feel worth supporting. I've been playing some version of D&D or another since I was 9 years old. If WotC was being a good custodian of their IP and then pushing it forward, I'd be buying every book. I'm 100% not against WotC or Hasbro as organizations. It's their actions that have pushed me away. Their release strategies, their disdain for any lore they didn't personally write, and most recently, their seeming intent on clawing back the very open publishing industry they helped create.

They could absolutely win me back. But just like how they pushed me away, it'll have to be through their actions.

Anyway.

We still don't know exactly what's happening here, we've got partial reports based on leaks, plus various statements from lawyers.

However, if we assume that WotC/Hasbro really and truly intends to try to revoke the OGL 1.0a with regard to already-released material in the case of people who have not agreed to the OGL 1.1, there is one obvious "So how do we respond?"

We respond by contacting organizations in the Open Source and Free Software movements to pass legislation to eliminate this supposed right to revoke. The GPL 2, the BSD license, the MIT license, the Mozilla Public License . . . all would be revocable under this theory. That's a huge deal, if you know how much of the modern world is built on software released under those licenses.

And while court precedent, according to some lawyers, currently supports revocation, the law governing contracts and licenses can be amended by legislation.

Good luck passing legislation with a House that can't even decide on a Speaker. Maybe Europe can save us.

It's been said Hasbro is beholden to its share holders, so why don't we buy some shares of our own? If enough of us brought enough Hasbro stock, wouldn't we have the authority to tell WOTC to open D&D?

The problem with this is that anyone with enough money to make this happen will be the kind of person who doesn't spend that kind of money just to leave perceived money on the table (regardless of whether it's really there or not). And as for a lot of people buying a few shares, well if we had enough people that could organize to make that happen, we'd be better off collectively boycotting the game, letting Hasbro's shares tank, and then buying them out for cheaper.

All I know is that there are a ton of rumours, but most of the actual lawyers weighing in are basically advising folks to cool their jets because there is way too limited information to draw strong conclusions at this point. My best friend, the guy I started playing D&D with 40+ years ago, is a partner at a big corporate law firm, and all our many conversations about law qualify me to say is that the law is complicated as hell and I am wise not to jump to any conclusions. (Also, two of the guys in my home group are lawyers but they are both crown prosecutors, so I doubt they would have much to say on this topic - anyhow, my point is that I am VERY uncomfortable making any assumptions because the one thing I have learned is that I don't know much about law).

1. The lawyers don't all agree on their conclusions.
2. If it gets to a point where lawyers are needed, damage will have already been done.
3. Waiting until the industry's head is on the chopping block to raise objections is probably not going to be very effective.

The time to talk and complain about this is now, not after it's published and in effect. Letting Hasbro set the pace on this will work to no one's advantage but Hasbro's.

 

[Umbran]

Even if I am portraying SRD content, such as a High Elf Evocation Wizard . It is still my artwork.

But a picture of an elf wizard shooting lightning isn't SRD content. It is something that can be modeled in a game with SRD content.

 

[Yaarel]

But a picture of an elf wizard shooting lightning isn't SRD content. It is something that can be modeled in a game with SRD content.

A Drow is 3e SRD content, among other Elf cultures. At least the Drow is also a 5e SRD monster.

An artistic portrait of a Drow Wizard casting a Lightningbolt or "Tiny Hut", would also be fair use of the SRD.

Any media that portray a Dragonborn or Tiefling are also fair use of the SRD.

If Hasbro wants to retain certain Property Identity, then obviously dont add it to the SRD.

But the content that is already in the historical SRDs − those genies are out of the bottle.

 

[mamba]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

because sitting tight now is sure to get noticed and factored in

You need to make your opinion known before the decision is made, not after. Boycotts can be called off too if it is warranted