OGL The new OGL 1.2, What is Victory?

I'm sorry but these analogies are getting more and more insulting. No one is going to hold up a feudal lord...
The copyright license agreement that Wizards offers shares the same spirit as the feudal contracts that bound vassals to their lord. By agreeing to the OGL 1.2 license, the author, the licensee places themselves under the judgment of the licensor, Wizards, for their economic livelihood. My analogy remains on point. And like the advent of feudalism, Wizards is attempting to do this by threats and other extra-legal measures in an attempt to sweep away the old order of things.

I understand if you consider this hyperbole. I believe it is more useful given the circumstances to call it out for what it actually is. Rather than pretend this is a misunderstanding between two parties living in the 21st century.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

The copyright license agreement that Wizards offers shares the same spirit as the feudal contracts that bound vassals to their lord.
so they own everything I do going forward and I have no choice to leave?
What contract did I sign saying I would even buy the next book? (I wasn't sold on 1D&D yet BEFORE all of this)

ALl we did was come to an understanding... "if you don't push any further we can live with this"
If they push further they will push us away.

The same way that Friday and Saturday I was pushing TORG, I will do so again if they go backwards... Do you know what serfs could not do, choose to go against there fuedal lords... DO you know what we did do and some still are doing, going against WotC
By agreeing to the OGL 1.2 license, the author, the licensee places themselves under the judgment of the licensor, Wizards, for their economic livelihood. My analogy remains on point. And like the advent of feudalism, Wizards is attempting to do this by threats and other extra-legal measures in an attempt to sweep away the old order of things.
and no 3pp has to, they are getting ORC from Piazo... I don't think serfs got choices like that.
I understand if you consider this hyperbole.
I am bordering on out right falsehood. You either don't understand the lack of rights under a feudal contracts that bound vassals to their lord or are ignoreing them.
I believe it is more useful given the circumstances to call it out for what it actually is. Rather than pretend this is a misunderstanding between two parties living in the 21st century.
It's not a missunderstanding... WotC over stepped so far we all came together and said "NO"
 

delericho

Legend
So how does this end for me?
  • Wizards acknowledge OGL 1.0a as an authorized irrevocable license.

I don't think that's enough. That just means it's safe until they change their minds. I think we need an OGL 1.0b that tightens up the language to make sure it's irrevocable and that makes no other changes from 1.0a.

Unfortunately, I see no chance of this happening - I'm pretty sure that morality clause is something WotC will insist on, which requires getting rid of OGL 1.0a. I think this one is going to need a court battle to establish, though I wouldn't want to be the one fighting it!

  • That all past open content remains open content under the OGL 1.0a and free to be used as they have been for the past 23 years. Works like the D20 3.0 and 3.5 SRD. The 5e 5.1 SRD as well remains under the OGL 1a.

Absolutely. Whatever licensing they end up with, this needs to be true.

Unfortunately, I see no chance of this happening - in order to lock down OneD&D as they clearly want, they need to find a way to close the previous SRDs.

  • In turn, I will acknowledge they have the right to license OneDnD any way they like. However, I reserve the right to make critical comments about their creative and legal choices.

Agreed.

  • The plan to release various sections under the CC-BY 4.0 license be followed through.
  • That Chris Cocks, CEO of Hasbro, and Cynthia William, CEO of Wizards of the Coast, each write and sign individual formal apologies to all the publishers impacted by their overreach and inept handling of the situation such as Paizo, Kobold Press, Troll Lord Games, Green Ronin, Gaming Ballistic, Frog God Games, and many others.

IMO, these aren't necessary. Provided the OGL 1.0b described comes about, I don't see any particular need for the CC-BY licensing. And although the PR optics of all of this probably necessitate some further apologies, I personally don't need them - I'm interested in their actions, not words.
 

Clint_L

Hero
Deauthorization
They also planning to add a notice deauthorizing the OGL 1.0a

Note the after (effective date), the intent here is to allow folks to continue selling or offering what has been previously released under the OGL 1.0a. Unfortunately, it cuts us off from building on or continuing the work we have been doing for the past 23 years.

Current authors and publishers can change the license on their original content, but for those who moved on to other pursuits or are no longer with us, this is not an option. Their work will remain unavailable to use until they enter the public domain decades from now.

I consider this unacceptable.
Can you (or someone else) clarify this point. I'm not a lawyer, and I am having trouble understanding what this has to do with WotC and the OGL. This seems like you want to maybe use IP from another 3PP, now defunct for reasons. Wouldn't that be a separate agreement between you and their inheritors?
 

Can you (or someone else) clarify this point. I'm not a lawyer, and I am having trouble understanding what this has to do with WotC and the OGL. This seems like you want to maybe use IP from another 3PP, now defunct for reasons. Wouldn't that be a separate agreement between you and their inheritors?
I just asked this.

Although no example has been given I have been told there is a vast treasure trove of Monsters, Spells, Items, NPCs, Locations ect that were released by company A, worked on by company B and some that even were refined by company C... now all 3 are both out of business unable to be contacted AND financially ready to sue and ruin anyone that dares to use what was open the second WotC slams the door...

I think of it about the OTHER game systems that use the OGL when it goes Bye Bye... in theory if tomorrow it's gone, and someone puts out a newe Fate book the company behind FATE can sue you and say "WotC deauthorized the license so now it's back to ours"
 

Can you (or someone else) clarify this point. I'm not a lawyer, and I am having trouble understanding what this has to do with WotC and the OGL. This seems like you want to maybe use IP from another 3PP, now defunct for reasons. Wouldn't that be a separate agreement between you and their inheritors?
No because prior to all this, the third party publisher explicitly gave everybody permission to use their open content under the OGL 1.0a. This permission was considered to be perpetual and irrevocable until Wizards mucked up the waters.

If I was to pass away tomorrow, folks still are able to use Blackmarsh either under the CC-BY or the OGL 1a (if still useable).
 

The Scythian

Explorer
Can you (or someone else) clarify this point. I'm not a lawyer, and I am having trouble understanding what this has to do with WotC and the OGL. This seems like you want to maybe use IP from another 3PP, now defunct for reasons. Wouldn't that be a separate agreement between you and their inheritors?
To add to what estar said, the way OGL 1.0a works is that a contributor designates some portion of their copyrighted work as Open Game Content, which prospective licensees can gain a license to use by satisfying a fairly simple set of requirements. It doesn't matter if the contributor is active, defunct, or dead. By designating their content as OGC under the OGL, they agree to make it available to anyone who satisfies the requirements. No separate agreement is ever needed. Indeed, a separate agreement would defeat the whole purpose of using the OGL.
 

mamba

Hero
Something they tore down from the DM's guild over a discretionary morality clause in that agreement, I gather. Not sure about the details or the timeline.
Looked there yesterday and it was there, from what I gather from the comments, they had to change the cover...
 






An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top