So how do we respond?

[JonM]

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.

 

[Greggy C]

 

[Hex08]

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.

 

[Yaarel]

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

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]

Any replacement license needs to include this same dichotomy.

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]

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.

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]

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

They can do whatever they want with OD&D, make GSL 2.0 and see if anyone is foolish enough to sign up, but the OGL must be preserved.

 

[Yaarel]

Or is the problem that it then is not part of the license?

Yes.

If so, why not have an SRD that is just OGC and keep the PI out if it?

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.

 

[ctorus]

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

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]

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.

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.