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

[Scribe]

Even bigger, they could have been the marketplace for non-D&D derived games as well. Any game with an online presence would benefit from inclusion in a platform with the reach of the OGL sphere.

Yeah, its mind blowing how short sighted of them it is to instead say 'mmm we would rather piss everyone off'.

I know I've been over the top lately, but christ have they ever screwed this up. Is it ignorance of what 1.0 actually is? I just cannot.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I know I've been over the top lately, but christ have they ever screwed this up. Is it ignorance of what 1.0 actually is? I just cannot.

The sophisticated leveraging of psychological warfare techniques suggest otherwise to me. But who knows? Maybe they're both ignorant and habitual psychopaths.

 

[delericho]

The OGL 1.0a cannot go away. It is "perpetual". All material that is currently under the terms of the OGL 1.0a remains so.

But. If the SRDs move to the ORC, then it would be legally moot to try go after anyone under the OGL 1.0a ever again − because the same resource is available via ORC anyway.

And what about things like the WEG d6 stuff, that's available under OGL 1.0e but not under ORC - and where there isn't anyone around to migrate them over to ORC? There's loads of open material like that, and if you can't publish new materials under OGL 1.0a (or a successor) then that material is all lost, permanently.

 

[Yaarel]

where there isn't anyone around to migrate them over to ORC?

Yeah, thats what I mean my "orphaned products".

The OGL 1.0a would remain as-is for these.

But those that can migrate to ORC should, especially when the SRDs are ORC too.

 

[delericho]

Still Publish OGL 1.0(a) content based on the SRD if Wizards won't back down: Everyone should make clear, perhaps in an open letter signed by Dancey, that they are going to continue to publish new content under the 1.0(a) that is based on the old content that was released including the 5E and 3.5 SRD, so sue us. You can't revoke an open source license that you delivered right with the product, and has no revocation provisions. If they sue, they prolong all of this, torpedo all of their plans for the next 2 years, and they will ultimately lose. They will fold if enough people go this route together.

I'm not a 3pp, so I'm not going to advocate this - it really doesn't sit right for me to push others to take a big risk when I'm not sharing it. That said, if anyone does go this route, I know where my sympathies would lie.

Boycott: We're not buying any Wizards products or signing the OGL 1.2. until you make good your unholy mess.

In particular, deleting D&D Beyond accounts, and dropping subscriptions to the free tier, seem to have an effect. Plus, we should avoid going to see their movie, and actively discourage others likewise.

(The upcoming release of the movie actually gives us some leverage that we otherwise wouldn't have - if we can arrange to have every bit of pre-publicity met with negative responses tying it to the OGL, that's likely to have a disproportionate effect.)

Until When?. Until we get the commons back that we built up over the last 20 years, and it is declared safe from attack.

They need to immediately drop illegal attempts to somehow invalidate the OGL 1.0(a) and confirm future content published under it is of course identically protected to past content. Until Wizards announces they they will never revoke 1.0(a). The also need to reissue past OGL 1.0(a) content under a license identical to the 1.0(a) but the world "irrevocable" right after perpetual. Call it 1.0(b) or 1.3. 1.2 should not be issued at all.

Alternately, releasing the 3.5E SRD and the 5.1 SRD as another just-as-open license, like the ORC or Creative Commons would be fine too, but it has to be a just-as-open irrevocable license as what we had in the past.

I don't think a just-as-open license works - there are an awful lot of orphaned OGL materials that would be lost if we go this route. It really needs to be your proposed OGL 1.0b.

 

[delericho]

Yeah, thats what I mean my "orphaned products".

The OGL 1.0a would remain as-is for these.

But those that can migrate to ORC should, especially when the SRDs are ORC too.

Yes, but if WotC get away with de-authorizing OGL 1.0a then it can't be used to publish new products. So all that open material will still exist, will still be open... but will be entirely useless since you can't publish anything that uses it.

 

[Yaarel]

Yes, but if WotC get away with de-authorizing OGL 1.0a then it can't be used to publish new products. So all that open material will still exist, will still be open... but will be entirely useless since you can't publish anything that uses it.

I am pretty sure WotC would fail at trying to de-authorize an "open license".

But we will see how crazy the execs are.


Note, it would be possible to use the Open Gaming Content − without using the OGL 1.0a license at all. Approach the content like one would any other copyright situation. The rules in the Open Gaming Content cannot be copyrighted, so use those straightforwardly. Then try change the terminology where possible, unless one is confident the terminology is truly generic. RPG rules tend to be generic. For example, to say, "roll d20 and add your ability bonus and your skill bonus" is generic.

 

[delericho]

I am pretty sure WotC would fail at trying to de-authorize an "open license".

I hope you're right. Unfortunately, unless and until someone challenges them and wins, they may well get away with it. And the more that people move to ORC (and especially the bigger players), the less likely that challenge becomes.

Note, it would be possible to use the Open Gaming Content − without using the OGL 1.0a license at all. Approach the content like one would any other copyright situation.

Sure, technically that is the case. (Though, actually, it doesn't just apply to 'open' content.) The problem is that you're then moving away from the safe harbour that a license gives, at which point you need to be really careful and probably get a professional to check your work.

I do wonder at what point that all becomes more trouble than it's worth, and it's considered better just to abandon those works.

Bottom line (IMO, of course): If WotC want to "make this right", I think the answer is an OGL 1.0b. A "just-as-open" license is a useful fallback, but not from them.

 

[Yaarel]

The problem is that you're then moving away from the safe harbour that a license gives, at which point you need to be really careful and probably get a professional to check your work.

Yeah, I know.

Everyone who is enthusiastic about the CC and how it forces one to distinguish between CC open content versus normal copyright protection, is creating this problem too.

Copyright is murky, and less useful for a gaming community. It sucks where the CC forces this kind of ultimatum.

By contrast, the OGL 1.0a actually creates protection for whatever the user doesnt want to give to the open content.

Bottom line (IMO, of course): If WotC want to "make this right", I think the answer is an OGL 1.0b. A "just-as-open" license is a useful fallback, but not from them.

For me, the problem with a hypothetical "OGL 1.0b" is, it would have Hasbro-WotC being its steward − which is the problem in the first place.

I would rather have the ORC and Hasbro-WotC having no say about whatever ORC gains as open content.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

For me, the problem with a hypothetical "OGL 1.0b" is, it would have Hasbro-WotC being its steward − which is the problem in the first place.

As I have suggested before, they should transfer their copyright and section 9 powers over the OGL irrevocably to a non-profit third party, ideally one set up for the purpose. The ORC could be the start of an industry association capable of creating such a body.

That way, any ORC license can be an update to the OGL 1.0(a). Everything would then be grandfathered into the new ecosystem, at least the way I understand section 9 to work.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I'm not a 3pp, so I'm not going to advocate this - it really doesn't sit right for me to push others to take a big risk when I'm not sharing it. That said, if anyone does go this route, I know where my sympathies would lie.

To reduce individual risk, this strategy would involve pledging money for a mutual legal defense fund in a "three musketeers" clause, like NATO's article 5.

 

[delericho]

For me, the problem with a hypothetical "OGL 1.0b" is, it would have Hasbro-WotC being its steward − which is the problem in the first place.

As I have suggested before, they should transfer their copyright and section 9 powers over the OGL irrevocably to a non-profit third party, ideally one set up for the purpose. The ORC could be the start of an industry association capable of creating such a body.

That way, any ORC license can be an update to the OGL 1.0(a). Everything would then be grandfathered into the new ecosystem, at least the way I understand section 9 to work.

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

I don't see why it needs to be renamed. It probably should be. The OGL name is tarnished. The new license just needs to specify that it is, in fact, an update of the OGL 1.0(a). And it would need to be compatible in operation, unlike the joke that Wizards is currently trying to coerce people into accepting.

 

[Yaarel]

Yeah, that would solve the problem. In that scenario ORC might need renamed (to OGL x.,x), but otherwise I don't see a problem. (And if anyone does feel it's a problem, the "you can publish under any authorized version" clause covers them. Or at least it does if WotC are no longer able to try their "no longer authorized" shenanigans.)

ORC hasnt been written yet, it doesnt have a number.

And its name is neutral: "Open RPG Creative".

 

[delericho]

I don't see why it needs to be renamed. It probably should be. The OGL name is tarnished. The new license just needs to specify that it is, in fact, an update of the OGL 1.0(a).

I'm not sure such a statement would be sufficient. But that's one for the legal minds drafting the thing.

And it would need to be compatible in operation, unlike the joke that Wizards is currently trying to coerce people into accepting.

Of course.

 

[Enrahim2]

Support Alternate Efforts: Support whatever Levelup, Kobold etc... do to keep a 5E compatible ecosystem alive. We will have to redouble this if Wizards thinks it can go into silent mode, or release the OGL 1.2 without ending its attack on the 1.0(a).

This has got me thinking. The big challenge with supporting alternatives is that most players are not playing alternatives due to not really seeing anything but the "defaults". I checked some of the big public LFG forums like Roll20 and reddit/lfg. There seem to be some more alternative games there now than when I previously checked, but they are still (vanilla) 5ed dominated.

I don't think a blanket recommendation to prioritise other efforts is going to have a big effect on its own. There are to much love and investments put into the system by very many. However limited campaigns with wide appeal might be able to give much more visible effect.

For instance "Dark March": Encourage GMs to not post new lfgs for 5ed and PF2 for a week or month (excluding more important things like filling ongoing campaign or if you are a doing DMing for a living). The idea being to give the smaller systems some time to shine, like stars at the night sky at a dark place far from the lights of the civilization.

 

[Vivificient]

When we drove the Sky People off Pandora, we thought the battle was over. But nothing good lasts forever.

It took them years, but they returned to try again, with 10 times the resources.

At first, we couldn't understand what they were doing. Why would they destroy an entire ecosystem, just for unobtanium?

But it turned out, they didn't care about the unobtanium. This time, they were hunting whales.

As for me and my family, it wasn't safe to stay in the forest any longer. Our only choice was to withdraw to the islands of the Ou'ar Sea. We had to leave behind everything we knew, and start over, adapting to new rules and a new way of life...

Uh, sorry, never mind, what were we talking about?

 

[Cadence]

Yeah, I know.

Everyone who is enthusiastic about the CC and how it forces one to distinguish between CC open content versus normal copyright protection, is creating this problem too.

Copyright is murky, and less useful for a gaming community. It sucks where the CC forces this kind of ultimatum.

By contrast, the OGL 1.0a actually creates protection for whatever the user doesnt want to give to the open content.

If SRDs are used for each product, and only CC-BY is used on the SRDs (big ifs), does it work vaguely like 1.0a in terms of having open and protected content?

Is this correct?

XY-publishing's Z-Hero game could come with a Z-SRD giving the parts they wanted CC-BY, but then have the actual Z-Hero rule book closed (except as far as Z-SRD was CC-BY).

AB-publishing could make a C-Warriors game that adapted the Z-SRD. They would have to make sure they gave attribution to the Z-SRD (and make sure they didn't submit C-Warrior to any electronic copyright protection checkers that would flag other people using Z-SRD material) but could have whatever protection they wanted on C-Warrior as long as it was at least as strict as CC-BY. In particular, the new stuff and even their specific adaptation could be copyrighted (except for making no claim on Z-SRD). They could make a C-SRD that was CC-BY if they wanted some of their new stuff "open".

(CC-BY-SA would be very different).

 

[Dustin_00]

1. Never buying WotC anything. Period. They are to never be trusted again.
2. I'm not going to see the DnD movie.
3. Buy 3PP content + my wallet is ready for #ORC content.
4. I don't pre-order anything by rule, but I will pay to pre-order #ORC.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

1. Never buying WotC anything. Period. They are to never be trusted again.
2. I'm not going to see the DnD movie.
3. Buy 3PP content + my wallet is ready for #ORC content.
4. I don't pre-order anything by rule, but I will pay to pre-order #ORC.

I instead will tell everyone I know to see that movie if it is actually good.
Having the movie tank does not only affect WotC.

I so however support and have supported the subscription cancellation if I think it can have an effect. Like stop pulling rugs under competitors who put trust in them.

I do not support actions out of spite however. I mean, WotC is not the evil corporation. It is just a corporation trying to trade services against money... like every corporation does.


So having an adult dialogue before taking ultimate actions seems more healthy.
Demonizing people (even those that lead corporations) is something you should be very wary of.
If game of thrones has taught us something, that most actions are evil or good depending on your point of view.