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


log in or register to remove this ad

I'm hearing the conversation from industry people and 3pp's beginning to shift from speculating about the legality or lack thereof of "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a to how to get 3pp's organized and start prepping for legal action.

WoTC must back down on "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a. They are set on a disastrous course. This is not going to end well for anybody. Back down ASAP, WoTC.
Some sources would be appreciated. I'm out of the loop.
 


ThorinTeague

Explorer
that is not how this works. WotC has to be the one suing, everyone else simply needs to keep on using it ;)
Not so IF wizards of the coasts shenanigans are found to be setting a precedent for other open licenses outside of just the tabletop gaming world, for example, software.

Setting a precedent that open licenses (outside of just the table top gaming community) can be voided on a whim would cause some crazy disruptions.

On the other hand, it may be decided that tabletop gaming open licenses do not apply to or set precedent for other open licenses. I wouldn't know. I guess it would probably depend on the judge.
 



I don't like the idea of paper printed books to be more expensive because the target aren't the true players but the collectors.

We think twice about to spend our money for our hobby when we start to feel we are being cheated. We can't love a product sold by company who doesn't respect us as customers.

I don't mind their project of VTT but here to be the number one is about to sell the right product the consumers want, not about to terminate the rival companies.

I don't reject their intentions D&D as a multimedia franchise, but their market strategy can't be based into we as compulsive-buyer zombies. We have to study, to work, and bills and taxes to be paid.

* Maybe I have watched too many movies, but I wonder if this epic failure was allowed to can cut heads among the CEOs of Hasbro top sphere, and like this to change some chairs. This has been one of the worst blunders within the entertaiment industry. D&D was in the best age of its history, but somebody wanted to be too smart and earn more.

* Do you know what would be funny? All their efforst for the VTT will be useless if, for example, Epic Games creates a Computer-TTRPG and their own VTT to be used in Fortnite: Creative Mode 2.0. Or it could be even worse, a Chinese videogame company creating a piracy clone, with the blessing of the Chinese goverment. (Do you know anything about the Chinese books about Harry Potter?)

* Hasbro could win in the trials of justice, but losing in the opinion of the people from the street.

* One of the first lessons learnt by the DMs is you can't hope the roleplayers following the railroad you had planned in the beginning. Your strategy has to change according the reality. For example the super-famous videogame Fortnite didn't started as a BR, that was not the initial plan, but a little time the BR mode was added in free-to-play, and then for surprise of everybody it became the superstar of the BR. You need enough mental flexibility to can change the strategy.

Maybe D&D Beyond would enjoy a better future as a plataform and streamer-service for 3PPs. Who said these were the enemy?
 

dave2008

Legend
I Thought the 1.2 only mentioned the 5.1 SRD. All the others are still in question.
I said in the OGL 1.2 FAQ they mention adding more to CC and 1.2. It is the lasts question in the FAQ:

Will additional content be added to the Creative Commons license and OGL 1.2?

Yes. We are looking at adding previous edition content to both the CC and OGL 1.2. We wanted to get this into your hands for feedback ASAP and focused on 5.1, but look for more content to be included throughout these discussions.
 

ThorinTeague

Explorer
I hope so
And here's another attitude I think we're going to be seeing more of as the weeks and months go on: just laughing in their face and giving them the🖕🖕 bird.

AAW games (they've got some names that I can't think of right now, but they've got some industry heads writing for them) has stated publicly that they simply won't change what they're already doing:

We will keep using the OGL[1.0a]. There’s no language in it that allows it to be revoked or retroactively curtailed. I am going to keep making games and books for people to enjoy!
 


ThorinTeague

Explorer
so Chris Cocks bought some shares in the last 12 months, not really all that interesting. Wonder if he regrets that ;)
It's all about timing. If I were a trader, I'd be poising myself to buy hasbro, although I'd wait for it to hit where I think is going to be rock bottom. Guessing is the fun part! Or if you had some inside info that this was coming, you could short sell all your hasbro. But I guess that's not what Cocks did.
 

Xyxox

Hero
First, I don't have an adversary in this. The OGL 1.0(a) already framed the conversation and didn't do it well. The OGL 1.2 can do it better. I prefer sound legal language to protect more than anything else.
That's fine for anything new. OGL1.0a is perpetual and thus irrevocable. There is no means under OGL 1.0a to revoke or "deauthorize" it. That power is not granted to WotC under the license. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and can be used to develop anything new perpetually. If they were to do a new SRD under a new OGL, fine. They cannot undo a perpetual license and thus the only choice will be battles in court if they attempt to do so. This affects far more than just TTRPGs and you will see (at least at an appellate level) dozens to hundreds of corporations with market caps above $5 billion get involved if WotC/Hasbro decides to die on this hill.
 

dave2008

Legend
That's fine for anything new. OGL1.0a is perpetual and thus irrevocable. There is no means under OGL 1.0a to revoke or "deauthorize" it. That power is not granted to WotC under the license. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and can be used to develop anything new perpetually. If they were to do a new SRD under a new OGL, fine. They cannot undo a perpetual license and thus the only choice will be battles in court if they attempt to do so. This affects far more than just TTRPGs and you will see (at least at an appellate level) dozens to hundreds of corporations with market caps above $5 billion get involved if WotC/Hasbro decides to die on this hill.
OK, I don't see how this is a response to what I said, but I don't have any issue with what you are saying. I still want an OGL 1.2 that is a better legal document. I have never said I wanted OGL 1.0(a) to be deauthorized and I have repeatedly said I don't think it can be.
 
Last edited:

Xyxox

Hero
OK, I don't see how this is response to what I said, but I don't have any issue with what you are saying. I still want an OGL 1.2 that is a better legal document. I have never said I wanted OGL 1.0(a) to be deauthorized and I have repeatedly said I don't think it can be.
Okay, that's cool I have no problem with a new OGL 1.2 for new SRD other than the fact that I believe anybody would be fool to gamble their business on such a license, especially with the garbage they already posted, but if that's where WotC wants to go and somebody is willing to sign onto that license, that's their problem, not mine.
 

We should remember maybe Hasbro shouldn't worry about the 3PPs but big fishes, true heavyweight in the entertaiment industry, and these megacorporations could be interested because their own reasons the 1.1a to be not unauthorized. Why? To can sell their own VTT or CRPG. These megacorporations can hire good lawyers, or offer licences of their own IPs.
 

mamba

Hero
We should remember maybe Hasbro shouldn't worry about the 3PPs but big fishes, true heavyweight in the entertaiment industry, and these megacorporations could be interested because their own reasons the 1.1a to be not unauthorized. Why? To can sell their own VTT or CRPG. These megacorporations can hire good lawyers, or offer licences of their own IPs.
sounds far fetched, so you object the revocation of 1.0a because maybe sometime in the future you want to work on a VTT that uses it.

All you need to do is (as of now) to release a VTT / something under 1.0a and see what happens
 

Festus

Villager
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OGL1.0(a) already do what you suggest the new OGL should do?
No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable and does not include the legal language that makes it irrevocable under the law as it has evolved since its original creation. It includes language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized, which in effect revokes the license. And this is exactly how WOTC is interpreting that language. These flaws are precisely why the current situation is even possible. Finally, OGL 1.0(a) is written and copyrighted by WOTC. A truly open license would be maintained and enforced by an independent 3rd party, usually a non-profit or law firm. This is how Creative Commons works, and how the proposed ORC license will work.
 

Xyxox

Hero
No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable and does not include the legal language that makes it irrevocable under the law as it has evolved since its original creation. It includes language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized, which in effect revokes the license. And this is exactly how WOTC is interpreting that language. These flaws are precisely why the current situation is even possible. Finally, OGL 1.0(a) is written and copyrighted by WOTC. A truly open license would be maintained and enforced by an independent 3rd party, usually a non-profit or law firm. This is how Creative Commons works, and how the proposed ORC license will work.
I know at least ten attorneys who disagree with your assessment completely. That does not even take into account the attorneys who wrote OGL 1.0a and the team that put everything together at WotC.
 


I know at least ten attorneys who disagree with your assessment completely. That does not even take into account the attorneys who wrote OGL 1.0a and the team that put everything together at WotC.
Indeed. If the OGL 1.0(a) isn't watertight in the way it was intended to be, that would at the very least harm the professional reputation of Brian E. Lewis, the lawyer who drafted it. He currently works at Azora Law and is involved in the ORC.

I imagine that Bob Tarantino too, an IP lawyer who wrote a dissertation on the virtues of the OGL, would also consider it a professional setback if his assessments turned out to be all wrong.
 
Last edited:

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top