The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...

[Festus]

OGL 1.0(a) is a weak and out of date agreement. If it weren't, we wouldn't be in this spot today. Just getting WOTC to leave 1.0(a) alone is NOT sufficient. It just kicks the can down the road until WOTC tries again. And it wouldn't matter in the short term anyways. The 3rd party publishers can't unsee the risk to their businesses and livelihoods. There is absolutely no scenario where we just go back to where things were a month ago. The folks whose line in the sand is merely not deauthorizing OGL 1.0(a) are failing to understand the scope of the issue.

There must be a new agreement, whether that's ORC or Creative Commons or some good faith attempt at a new OGL by WOTC (and 1.2 is NOT a good faith attempt.) The new agreement must guarantee the licenses of already published works, and provide a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free license for future works without draconian back doors such as the morality and severance clauses in 1.2.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

what is certain is that it was not a clean heist, to stay in the analogy. At this point they still got away with a lot of stuff and shot me (not lethally), but are themselves unharmed, apart from a few scratches


lethal? As in D&D stops selling and WotC shelves it? Not seeing that at all


so far it is a win-lose, just not as drastically as it started out

I think we lost each other.

I think OGL 1.1 could have dealt a lethal blow to a lot of 3pps.
I don't think it will be a win for WotC. A Pyrrhus victory at most.

 

[mamba]

I think we lost each other.

I think OGL 1.1 could have dealt a lethal blow to a lot of 3pps.
I don't think it will be a win for WotC. A Pyrrhus victory at most.

then how is it lethal for the robber / WotC? At most they did not get everything the wanted by driving the 3pps out of business instead of producing content

 

[UngeheuerLich]

then how is it lethal for the robber / WotC? At most they did not get everything the wanted by driving the 3pps out of business instead of producing content

I never said that. But if you will, I speculate:
If WotC loses too much goodwill, they might get deperate and try to shoot again and again and again and lose even more. Which means, they try to sell bad game supplements and will lose more goodwill. Books remain on the shelves. New books tank. Good bye.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, the OGL 1.2 does not deauthorize OGL 1.0(a), that is a separate move by WotC. Nothing in OGL 1.2 invalidates 1.0(a).

However, even if we accept the OGL 1.0(a) is deauthorized (which I don't) it only stops anything new using that license. Just move over to either the CC or OGL 1.2* and your all good.

*Again this assumes the OGL 1.2 is improved as needed.

Does that improvement include moving the SRDs from the 1.0a to the 1.2? Because that would be a necessary (but not the only) step.

 

[dave2008]

Fair enough. They have already proven who they are, but fair enough.

The only issue I have with this assumption is that WotC is not a monolithic thing. Not only do you have people with different ideas and agendas in the corporation, but people change. And since it is run by people, I am willing to accept change and forgive - particularly if comes with an ironclad legal document!

 

[dave2008]

Does that improvement include moving the SRDs from the 1.0a to the 1.2? Because that would be a necessary (but not the only) step.

Yes, but they have already committed to that so I didn't include it. I guess we have to wait and see, but they said that was the plan in the OGL 1.2 FAQ. They are also planning to put more editions into CC per the FAQ.

 

[Scribe]

The only issue I have with this assumption is that WotC is not a monolithic thing. Not only do you have people with different ideas and agendas in the corporation, but people change. And since it is run by people, I am willing to accept change and forgive - particularly if comes with an ironclad legal document!

The fact this wasn't backed off immediately once the leaks started, shows that monolith or not, the exec level has enough control/pull, that without that change, it wont matter.

I have my doubts that given all we have seen, there is going to be the shake up needed.

 

[dave2008]

The fact this wasn't backed off immediately once the leaks started, shows that monolith or not, the exec level has enough control/pull, that without that change, it wont matter.

I disagree with this assessment, but there is no way for either of us to prove anything. It is all speculation on our part.

I have my doubts that given all we have seen, there is going to be the shake up needed.

I have my doubts too. But I don't think management needs to be shaken up to get things corrected.

EDIT: Just finished reading some post on another thread and I admit my doubts are increasing!

 

[Scribe]

I disagree with this assessment, but there is no way for either of us to prove anything. It is all speculation on our part.

I have my doubts too. But I don't think management needs to be shaken up to get things corrected.

I'll hope you are right, but I cannot imagine a world where I get to wake up as optimistic as you appear to be.