So how do we respond?

[Clint_L]

Here's why I am being cautious:

1. It's possible that Hasbro/WotC are being Bond villains right now and basically trying to stifle competition, revoke the existing OGL, etc, the way some of the more extreme "leaks" have implied (I'm thinking particularly of the one that reads like a ten year old wrote it, not a contract lawyer). In that case, yeah, man the barricades! Pass me a torch!

2. It's possible that what we are getting is fragments of negotiations between lawyers, management, etc., and people are leaking things in an attempt to strengthen their position. For example, what if what people are assuming is language from a new OGL is actually language from a specific contract negotiation? Suddenly the situation looks a lot different.

We know for sure that going forward, Hasbro wants renumeration from people using D&D to make money past certain thresholds. That's not unreasonable. The question that we don't really know yet is how this relates to existing products, and whether the terms will be such the there will be a chilling effect of the release of future products, which would be bad for fans and creators.

 

[S'mon]

There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights. We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site. One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.

Hopefully all lawyers here agree that one party to a contract cannot change the terms of that contract without the agreement of the other party to that contract.
The actual issue at hand is whether one side can unilaterally terminate this 'perpetual' licence agreement, and we have some disagreement on that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights. We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site. One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.

What you can technically get away with and "within your rights" in the normal usage are entirely different things.

There's no "right" for a corporation to use a loophole to reverse the well-stated, well-recorded purpose of a licence.

It's something they may technically be able to get away with. But it's not a right or anything like that. It's not normal. It's not decent. It's appropriate. It's not honest.

I don't find it ludicrous at all. Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed? Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.

Essentially, yes it does say it cannot be changed, only new version added in future.

Clauses 4 & 9. It's perpetual, and if WotC does change it in any way you don't like, you can any authorized version of the licence.

The understanding PUBLICLY PROMOTED BY WOTC AND ITS STAFF, both when they introduced the OGL with 3E, and when they reintroduced the OGL with 5E, was that whilst they could offer new versions of the OGL, you could always rely on a previous version that they'd previously offered. Let's be really clear on this, because WotC were - this WAS intended to be irrevocable in the sense that no version would stop being legally effective, only that new versions could be added. Ryan Dancey has been incredibly clear about that. You could not ask for more clarity.

Deauthorizing the licence is essentially an attempt to end-run around the entire purpose of licence, and goes against literally everything WOTC, ITS STAFF AND EMPLOYEES have ever said about the licence until literally last month. Hell, even the statement on Beyond last month doesn't mention deauthorizing the existing version. For obvious reasons.

Whether it technically works legally is almost irrelevant, because it was certainly unexpected and legally relatively novel, and certainly went against how WotC themselves described the OGL as operating. Repeatedly. Over the course of years.

 

[Incenjucar]

Here's why I am being cautious:

1. It's possible that Hasbro/WotC are being Bond villains right now and basically trying to stifle competition, revoke the existing OGL, etc, the way some of the more extreme "leaks" have implied (I'm thinking particularly of the one that reads like a ten year old wrote it, not a contract lawyer). In that case, yeah, man the barricades! Pass me a torch!

2. It's possible that what we are getting is fragments of negotiations between lawyers, management, etc., and people are leaking things in an attempt to strengthen their position. For example, what if what people are assuming is language from a new OGL is actually language from a specific contract negotiation? Suddenly the situation looks a lot different.

We know for sure that going forward, Hasbro wants renumeration from people using D&D to make money past certain thresholds. That's not unreasonable. The question that we don't really know yet is how this relates to existing products, and whether the terms will be such the there will be a chilling effect of the release of future products, which would be bad for fans and creators.

It's reasonable to be cautious, but it's easier or harder depending on how much skin you have in the game, how much you've been burned in the past, etc. I respect that you are reserving judgement, but we have all seen things like all the shows being erased from HBO's catalog, the GSL (and I love 4e very much!) etc., so it's also reasonable for folks to be cynical about this. At the core I hope we can all respect each other's feelings in both directions, and try to avoid falsehoods.

At a minimum I think that this being at all an issue shows that the TTRPG community should safeguard against this sort of thing in the future - we need something that anyone can use as a free base forever.

I'm reserving judgement until we have the facts, but at a minimum we know that Kickstarter is showing us some unpleasant numbers, and that alone is reason to start considering next steps. Those of us providing how we will respond if this is not All A Dream are doing so in hopes of applying what little pressure the customer base can at this stage, and recognizing that the OGL is not a guarantee any longer, even if WotC reverses all of our fears.

 

[mamba]

There seems to be some disagreement over whether changing the license is within their rights. We have multiple opinions from various lawyers right here on this site. One of these days, maybe a judge will weigh in with a definitive answer, but right now, absolute or definite doesn't apply.

a judge weighing in is no more definite either, that is why appellate courts exist

I don't find it ludicrous at all. Does the license say it cannot be revoked or changed? Because WotC seems to be of the opinion that they're free to change it.

they can be of the opinion the Earth is flat, that does not make it so.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And how is that a counterpoint? Just getting paid for it doesn't turn a good or neutral act into an immoral one.

I am saying (I think) I agree I don't care if pathfinder or level up goes on. I don't play either. I don't care if 100 books come out next year if they are ones I wont use. I DO care about the people BEHIND PF and LU who could lose there jobs over this.
I also am not worried about fans who wont be able to buy 3pp, I worry about the writers who need to sell them.

Pathfinder is way more than merely a copy of third edition, just like levelup isn't just repacked 5e. 3pps both totally amateur and 'professional' ones are all on the same boat here.

yes PF and LU are changes... but they are piggy backing off of 3e and 5e.

(Yes, I've been paid on the past, but I'm not raking the dough. It isn't even recurrent enough to count as a side gig. I've spent way more in the hobby than I've collected as payment for working on the ogl, and when I've been lucky enough to get paid, it was a godsend that helped me go through hard times)

most of the 3pp spend more gaming then they make... it's only the upper 5% that make any money and only the top of them that make more then the 750k... I understand that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

a judge weighing in is no more definite either, that is why appellate courts exist

man that is scary... lets say that a 3pp sues, wotc gets an injunction (not sure that is the word) so they can't publish while spending a year in court and a million dollars. and wins... then WotC/Hasbro appeals and gets another order (injunction?) and they have to do another 4-6 months another million dollars and more court... and MAYBE it gets upheld maybe WotC wins... then what another appeal another set of time and another million dollars?

 

[MonsterEnvy]

While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.

You don't care that they'll deauthorize the OGL and cause huge problems for or destroy virtually every single game using the OGL?

Did you miss that bit?

 

[MoonSong]

While it’s bad pr if Wizards releases 1.1 in the form suggested by the leak, (and I don’t think they will) I personally don’t actually care very much if they do, cause it only affects a few groups already making money.

You don't care if @Morrus gets into bankruptcy -either by leonine royalties or under legal fees- abd this site has to close?

You don't care that ALL ongoing support for older editions and games that only survive in a legal way thanks to the OGL ceases entirely?