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.