OGL The new OGL 1.2, What is Victory?

@estar what can't you produce under 1.2 that you would have done under 1?
I couldn't use the open content of Traveller20 whose publisher passed away a few years back and is sadly no longer around to update the license.
I understand not trusting WotC more generally, totally get that, but then this is all probably moot, you may just be team ORC.

It is not just about new content. It is about not surrendering the right to build on 23 years worth of creative content. I realize it is a fine distinction between being allowed to keep a work and using the work. But it is an important one, and one that will have ramifications down the line. As it does for other creative fields. I recommend the below as a starting point for the larger issue.

Orphan Work

But otherwise, is there something you wanted to do and can't do under 1.2?
Assuming that we are talking about new work licensed under 1.2. It is not as good of a deal as the OGL 1.0a, Creative Commons, or any number of other options I have. And I have no desire to require folks to submit to my moral judgments when sharing the content I make. If something arises then I will deal with it then and in accordance with the circumstances. As I have already done in the past with the incident I related.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.
Yes because of the dozens of third-party publishers like Gaming Ballistics, Frog God Games, that have been harmed by their inept handling of the whole affairs. Or the dozens of Kickstarter whose fulfillment have been thrown into disarray caused by the uncertainty. If you don't believe then email some of these publishers and politely ask them about their experience of the past two weeks.
 

Zardnaar

Legend
I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.

I think at this point, your average player is going to lose interest in this fight, wizards walked back everything except for a small portion that few people really care about, except for the vocal minority of creators.

Feuer und blute for WotC.
 

I haven't trusted WotC ever. I trust that the OGL 1.0a will hold up in court if they decide to sue me for copyright infringement. It's a perpetual, worldwide license. It's also designed to be viral, i.e. self-replicating.

To the extent that the license agreement is somehow ambiguous or shoddy at achieving this, there are clear statements of intent in their old FAQ and on old news servers. And while that might well be irrelevant to some court in Texas or wherever (I don't know), it's pretty much the next step in trying to figure out what the parties have actually agreed to where I live.

I have no present interest in signing up for any new terms, no matter the terms.
 

\
I'm not talking about OSRIC. I'm talking about old OOP books from the 2000s and not having to scrub them of any Owlbear™'s because Hasbro decided to illegally violate a contract in order to reclaim IP that they've already put out under a CC-like license.
Yup for instance this

Which has this
1674192315567.png

We can ask @Morrus how long it will be until Enworld can spare the time to update this so that its open content is usable by others. If for some reason the choice is the OGL 1.2 then a fair amount of work is required since at this time only the 5.1 SRD is going to be released as open content.
 


I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.

I think at this point, your average player is going to lose interest in this fight, wizards walked back everything except for a small portion that few people really care about, except for the vocal minority of creators.
That was a purposeful ploy on their part. Some of it (the "deauthorization" stuff they keep skirting) is likely illegal misrepresentation too, if my admittedly restricted knowledge of common law gleaned from Wikipedia is anything to go by. From where I live, it's looking more like straight criminal fraud if they actually strong-armed anyone to sign away any existing rights on that basis.

 
Last edited:

That was a purposeful ploy on their part. Some of it (the "deauthorization" stuff they keep skirting) is likely illegal misrepresentation too, if my admittedly restricted knowledge of common law gleaned from Wikipedia is anything to go by. Where I live, it's looking more like straight criminal fraud if they actually strong-armed anyone to sign away any existing rights on that basis.

Yeah, I'm pretty sure I've been seeing this mentioned in some form or another for the last few weeks. But I think they miscalculated how willing to fight the people they slammed are the first time around, since they tried to get 3pps to sign on to a "sweetheart deal" on the OGL 1.1. Someone kept receipts and mailed them out, and WotC now has a blowback that's tanking their stock.
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.

I think at this point, your average player is going to lose interest in this fight, wizards walked back everything except for a small portion that few people really care about, except for the vocal minority of creators.
Mod Note:

The second half of your post is fine. The first part is needlessly provocative. People ARE upset, yes, and openings like that are more likely to push buttons than smooth things over.
 
Last edited:

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
On the other hand... this document explicitly states that 1.0a remains in force for works already published under it. Which, if I'm reading it correctly (would welcome correction by a lawyer), would seem to mean the sublicensing provision also remains in force and anyone can safely sublicense from, say, d20srd.org.
Yep.
 

From the preamble? Not a lawyer, but that's not... really true. It's just nonsense gobbledygook:

NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.

What is any of that even supposed to mean?

I think it's telling that it's not actually part of the new license, but I'm far from convinced that WoTC actually intend for this to mean what you think it means. And since it's not a part of the proposed new license, that actually makes it even worse (since it could be construed as having some sort of effect even if you don't accept the terms of the new license).
 

mamba

Hero
Access to legacy stuff and being able to create derivative works from said legacy stuff. It's 20+ years of accumulated OGC under that license, some of it straight up abandoned.
With 1.2 being an OGL and 1.0a allowing the use of any authorized OGL, can you not simply use it?
 


mamba

Hero
They yanked an anti-captialist work as hateful, while adding terrible racist baggage to the Hadozee in their own work. I don't trust who's in charge NOW with morality policing, let alone 20 years from now.
They had the anti-capitalist work change the cover, they fixed their own Hadozee…
 

mamba

Hero
I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.
I’d take that bet…

I think at this point, your average player is going to lose interest in this fight, wizards walked back everything except for a small portion that few people really care about, except for the vocal minority of creators.
just because you never cared doesn’t mean you should extrapolate to the rest of us. Had we listened to the likes of you from the start, we’d still have 1.1
 

Branduil

Hero
For me, victory is for simple. I want WotC to place all previous SRDs into ORC, so that they will always be freely available, and out of WotC's hands. I do not care at this point what they do with their own license, I'm moving on. I do think the morality clause is awful and abusable, but if people want to make a deal with the sword of Damocles hanging above them, that's their choice.
 

mamba

Hero
I don't accept the new terms. I don't have to either. There's no mechanism to "deauthorize" any previous version.
that is your prerogative. I am kind of waiting to get the best 1.2 we can, only for WotC to fail at revoking 1.0a ;) At that point the best part of 1.2 would be whatever ends up in CC, if they succeed I might still have an acceptable (to me) 1.2

It's the other way around, see: FAQ: Open Game License
yeah, I used this symmetrical… so is the answer ‘no’ then or a ‘we have no idea’? Does anyone actually know for sure?
 

Wasteland Knight

Adventurer
I am pretty sure wizards could change nothing, and just give away their entire IP, and people would still be upset.

I think at this point, your average player is going to lose interest in this fight, wizards walked back everything except for a small portion that few people really care about, except for the vocal minority of creators.
Just because the average player lacks principles doesn’t mean @estar should give up on his.
 

Matt Thomason

Adventurer
With 1.2 being an OGL and 1.0a allowing the use of any authorized OGL, can you not simply use it?
I'm not sure how we can use 1.2 for including works by 3PPs released under 1.0a.

For one, it's a grant direct from WotC to us, with no viral component that sublicenses the content to the next reader.
Secondly, there's no equivalent to Section 15 where we list the other works we're using. It's written without any concept of content other than a) the licensed content from WotC, b) our own content, c) things we're using under other licenses (which are then not included in this license, but in a seperate license page we'd have to add.

While it calls itself "OGL 1.2", it's an OGL in name only. The very functionality required for it to serve as a 1.0a replacement is missing (section 15, the identification of what is Open Game Content/Product Identity, the ongoing grant from us to the reader, etc.). The only way to do that is to include a separate 1.0a license page that can cover those things, specifically for the non-WotC stuff. But then we potentially open ourselves to WotC telling us 1.0a is not authorized, and how dare we print it alongside 1.2. Despite me being confident they can't actually stop us doing that, legally, it's likely going to stop most of us from trying.

I'm willing to be corrected on this, if someone can explain what my licensing section at the end of a book will look like in order to satisfy both WotCs and the 3PPs licensing requirements. Right now, there appears to be no way that does not end up violating either our agreement with WotC (at least in their eyes), or our agreement with the 3PP.

Taking to Twitter just now, there's 3PPs now convinced that 1.0a content is lost forever and locked off eternally unless the original creators relicense it under a different license. Plans appear to be a mix of:

  • Forget 1.2, and keep using 1.0a anyway.
  • Use the ORC for the SRD plus 1.0a for 3PP content thus having no WotC license to worry about.
  • Abandon all previous content under 1.0a as "lost"
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top