I think there was a poison pill in the OGL 1.0a license because it says: “You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” So if you’re offering a work for download that includes Open Gaming Content, every time somebody makes a copy, you’re “distributing” it, and you are only allowed to do that using an authorized version of the license.
My take is that they can’t take away your PDFs, but publishers cannot give you any of their PDFs under the OGL 1.0a if Wizards of the Coast decide that the OGL 1.0a is no longer an “authorized” license.
Time to switch all the shit to Creative Commons licenses! 🤬
So, if you are distributing a PDF, here are my question to you:
@randomwizard pointed out that they had said the OGL was not a good license back in the G+ days and that they had gotten a lot of pushback.
I was also very easy going about it when I shouldn’t have been. My license-reading skills were lousy and I didn’t see it. My main gripe back then was that it was long, complicated, and that it allowed the vague-claiming of Product Identity to nullify the point of the license (for me). But I definitely didn’t see that “authorized” clause as a problem because it seemed so similar to the GPL.
The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. … If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and “any later version”, you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. – GNU General Public License v3
@chgowiz points me at this blog post from 2019:
Open Gaming Content is the content WotC says the public can use, and Product Identity is the content WotC claims the public can’t, but Open Gaming Content can’t be copyrighted because it’s already in the public domain. By its own terms, the 5th edition Dungeons & Dragons OGL (“OGL”) grants to gamers something that the gamers already have the right to use. Thus, no consideration passes to the gamers, and the OGL is a legally null document. – Part 3: The Damage Done by the Otherwise Ineffectual Open Gaming License
Part 3: The Damage Done by the Otherwise Ineffectual Open Gaming License
Hm. Not sure about that…
@appelcline has a good post:
Evidence of intent usually can’t overcome what’s written in a contract, but the question will be whether it can overcome ambiguity (”authorized”) and omission (”irrevocable”). I’d hope so, because if not publishers have produced 20+ years of support material for Wizards of the Coast based on a lie. – Is the OGL Era Over?
Well, if it was a lie, then even the boss believed it back then. @morrus asked Ryan Dancey and got back the following:
Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked. – Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL
Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL
#Copyright #RPG
(Please contact me if you want to remove your comment.)
⁂
Right now I’m still in the “Ain’t Nothing Gonna Happen” camp, i.e. it’s either overblown/early reporting or WotC/Hasbro will pull back after this initial kerfuffle.
But let’s say that the license is revoked, I’ll consider the whole territory scorched earth. No more D&D or any derivatives, focusing completely on alternate games with better licenses *and* no discernable lineage beyond a certain degree (so not just switching to some legally illiterate “Just gonna publish this D&D-esque ruleset as CC”).
I suspect some publishers who are using the OGL right now would switch anyways then, so things like OpenD6 or Fudge would be prime candidates (Not sure if Mongoose can re-license Legend then easily, as the RQ rights are back at Chaosium)
– mhd 2023-01-05 17:47 UTC
---
I agree with mhd. Nothing will happen. If Hasbro did try to withdraw the old license they would have to sue the current publishers that use the OGL (some rather large like Paizo) to enforce these new claims and license. That would earn so much ill will it would kill their lifestyle brand before it got moving.
– ruprecht 2023-01-05 23:18 UTC
---
We’ll have to see what happens. I don’t believe that Wizards can revoke the OGL 1.0a license from existing products, and I can’t imagine that a lawsuit from Paizo wouldn’t be fast on the heels of an attempt to invalidate the 1.0a license since the entire Pathfinder family tree is derived from it.
– Frtoz 2023-01-06 00:26 UTC
---
There’s also the possibility that they’ll just rephrase what OGC is.
– Sandra 2023-01-06 03:20 UTC
---
I suspect WotC will formally revoke OGL 1.0a if they a serious about changing anything at all. Since in section 9 the current OGL allows distribution of Open Gaming Content under “any version” of the licence. As is, this would even include a future SRD6.0 released under OGL1.1. And this just doesn’t make sense.
https://tabletop.social/@wandererbill/109640939608350323
Other than that, I agree with mhd as well.
– Wanderer Bill 2023-01-06 09:05 UTC
---
Thanks for that other link in the thread!
Perpetual License: A Copyright Holder can issue a perpetual license — which is a license to use the Work indefinitely. This only means that the license does not have an inherent expiration date. It can still be terminated or revoked.
Revocable License: A license can be revocable or irrevocable. If a license is irrevocable, then it cannot be revoked by the Copyright Holder. If a license is revocable, then- you guessed it- it can be revoked by the Copyright Holder. If the license does not say it is irrevocable, then it is revocable by default.
– Let’s Take A Minute To Talk About D&D’s Open Gaming License (OGL)
Let’s Take A Minute To Talk About D&D’s Open Gaming License (OGL)
– Alex 2023-01-06 09:46 UTC
---
joe b. has a good take on EN World:
All the arguments come down to “You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.” in sect 9.
Every publication released under the OGL is released under an authorized version of the license because *every* version WoTC released is an authorized one.
Creating a new version of the OGL that “un-authorizes” previous versions **for that user** requires the **user’s agreement**, in that new license.
No new, unsigned, unagreed-upon license removes the prior section 4: “In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.” Because it’s not a contract until both sides agree to the terms, and the contract was already made with the terms set out at the time when a product is published under the OGL.
All of the versions of the OGLs are authorized until one agrees with WotC that they aren’t anymore by making a new contract with them by publishing under the new OGL.
– source
– Alex 2023-01-06 17:09 UTC
---
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game is going to be dumping the OGL and moving to CC BY-SA 4.0 International.
It doesn’t matter whether Hasbro releases their new license or not. It doesn’t matter whether it stands up in court or not. Their attempt to invalidate the license we’ve always depended on and then to effectively steal what we’ve created demonstrates that they are an existential threat to our game. So, what do we do? We excise the OGL. – A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well
A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well
– Alex 2023-01-08 10:50 UTC
---
Many people used the OGL because they felt that this would absolve them from further thinking about the legal risks (me included) but didn’t actually copy and paste any actual words from the d20 SRD except for two and three word phrases like “fireball” or “magic missile”. My thinking now is: if Wizards de-authorizes the 1.0a license, that’s weird, but it also doesn’t really impact me, since I didn’t actually copy and paste anything from the d20 SRD, right?
Of course I want to change that. I want to change the license on the stuff I have put out so that the recipients can build on it, put it on their websites, and so on.
What a waste of time having to do this! Wizards, I shall remember this. May you fall on lean years and regret what you have done.
What I think is important, however, is that if you did not copy and paste from the d20 SRD, there’s no trouble coming your way. And the same is true if there is a chain of books between your book and the d20 SRD. The only one that’s trying to mess with us is Wizards.
Yeah, with trust running low, all the other system reference documents by other companies are at risk from doing the same 180° turn that Wizard did. Using Creative Commons licenses is the future.
I think I just need to understand how urgent this is. My downloads might end up having an unauthorized license, but using an unauthorized license is no breach of copyright unless I actually copied and pasted stuff from the d20 SRD. And if I copied and pasted stuff by others that didn’t copy it from the d20 SRD, I’m not at risk unless these people want to pull a similar asshat move as Wizards. And finally, if I rewrote it all in my own words, then I’m fine anyway. Just change the license.
– Alex 2023-01-08 14:07 UTC
---
Rob Conley on his blog:
… it was held that a termination clause was still relevant despite the perpetual license grant. As it so happens the OGL has an explicit termination clause. And de-authorization is not one of the grounds. More so Section 13 holds that sublicenses are still valid. – Concerning Bat in the Attic Games, Steady as She Goes along with further comments on the OGL.
Concerning Bat in the Attic Games, Steady as She Goes along with further comments on the OGL.
Based on Simon's EN World post.
– Alex 2023-01-09 15:29 UTC
---
The EFF:
For example, if I want to describe a magic spell that turns someone invisible in a game, a non-copyrightable way to do it might be:
« Invisibility spell: You must speak magic words and touch your target. When you do, they become invisible for one hour. You may end this spell whenever you wish. This spell ends automatically if your target makes an attack or casts a spell. »
While there are different word choices that could be made in some places, this is a functional description of how the spell works as a game mechanic. You have to speak, so it doesn’t work if you’re gagged. You have to touch the target, so you need to be close to them. And so on. Functional descriptions aren’t copyrightable. – Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D’s Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators
Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D’s Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators
– Alex 2023-01-11 08:00 UTC
---
I think many people writing about the OGL now ignore this part, which was very significant for me and made me use the OGL to write my games:
… and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor
So would write a game and add: This work is 100% Open Game Content. I felt like I was contributing back to an ecosystem, even if I didn’t like how some people used the license. They basically said: This work is 100% Product Identity. Profiting from the commons and not giving back!
Related complaint, 11 years ago: 2012-04-26 OGL vs CC BY SA.
– Alex 2023-01-11 08:11 UTC
---
@hexcrawl writes:
My point is that (a) copyright can absolutely protect fictional creations independent of their specific expression and (b) the determination of whether a specific fictional creation has ANY protection and whether a specific work is or is not derivative are both extremely non-trivial. – Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?
Do I Need to Use the Open Gaming License?
– Alex 2023-01-13 21:44 UTC
---
Ryan Dancy again:
For 22 years, the OGL v1.0a has been the foundation of an incredible success story. D&D came roaring back from the abyss and today the 5th Edition of the game has surpassed all expectations; millions of people play and engage with the brand every day. At least in part that is due to the success of the Open Gaming License. – 22 Years Ago I Saved D&D, Today I Want to Save the Open Gaming License
22 Years Ago I Saved D&D, Today I Want to Save the Open Gaming License
@LeviKornelsen takes a look at the latest statement from Wizards:
It’s so good that you’re listening and quietly preparing to screw people over in only some of the ways you intended. – Regarding the OGL update.
– Alex 2023-01-14 12:31 UTC
---
Alphastream lists the issues:
The leaked OGL 1.1 had a number of serious problems that jeopardize WotC’s future, that of creators, and our hobby as a whole. In this post I list the key issues, so we can assess whether any future OGL 2.0 meets our collective needs. – The Key Issues for OGL 2.0
– Alex 2023-01-16 05:38 UTC
---
Noism:
What worried me about Cynthia Williams’ statement about D&D’s ’undermonetarization’ was not that she wants to monetize it (that’s her job) but that she dressed up her ambitions for WotC as being to ’serve [customers] by giving them more ways to express their fandom’. … Your identity is not a commodity, and should not be expressed through the commodities you buy. – On the OGL and 'Expressing Your Fandom'
On the OGL and 'Expressing Your Fandom'
– Alex 2023-01-16 06:26 UTC
---
/u/mutantraniE about the financial background:
You can check out Hasbro’s recent quarters already. Third quarter of 2022 they were down in everything compared to third quarter 2021. Down -15% in earnings, down -47% in operating profit, down -31% in adjusted operating profit, down -49% in net earnings and net earnings per diluted share, -28% in adjusted net earnings and adjusted net earnings per diluted share, down -40% in Earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization, -25% in adjusted EBITDA. And their stock price is down -35.42% from a year ago.
– Alex 2023-01-16 16:47 UTC
---
On the background on RPG.net:
Cynthia Williams is the president of WotC, replacing Chris Cocks. She worked at Amazon for a decade in their Fulfillment by Amazon division (which we’ll see again in this post). After that, she worked at Microsoft on their Xbox and Gaming Ecosystem Commercial Team. Hasbro’s press release announcing her hiring chose to emphasize her “proven track record, across both Microsoft and Amazon, of scaling businesses to drive profitable growth.” What she might be starting to understand is that the lessons you learned scaling ecommerce companies might not work for a TRPG company/brand.
Dan Rawson is the current senior VP of D&D. He’s a former Marine captain with an MBA from Northwestern. He also used to work at Amazon on the Fulfillment by Amazon team. … Rawson worked for some ecommerce companies before moving to Microsoft in 2020, where he “[l]ed the establishment of a modern digital selling practice” and “[d]elivered critical product capabilities that allow customers to operate seamlessly between Dynamics’ apps.” He joined WotC from Microsoft around six months ago as the senior VP for D&D. Cynthia Williams almost certainly knew Rawson at Microsoft and brought him over to help with D&D. …
Ray Winniger’s the former Executive Producer of D&D. The current Executive Producer is Kyle Brink. Prior to joining WotC in 2021, he looks to have been a product manager and producer at NCSoft, Arena.net, and some other software companies. (NCSoft and Arena.net are video game companies.) When Brink joined WotC in 2021, he’s listed as a “Director of Studio Operations” … Then, six months ago, he’s suddenly the Executive Producer of D&D … WotC replaced him with Brink.
… So that’s who we’re talking about: tech and ecommerce executives with MBAs and video game producers. … They have no meaningful experience in the TRPG market, TRPG game design, or book publishing in general. – Epicurean DM, page 39
Sorry for the long quote.
– Alex 2023-01-16 16:58 UTC
---
@LeviKornelsen takes a look at the latest statement from Wizards:
… conspicuous absence of notes on future OGL 1.0 content, which means you’re still aiming to end access to the old versions of the license for future use as well as pressing an update to the new one by legal shenanigans. – Working Conversations.
– Alex 2023-01-19 11:07 UTC
---
Rob Conley:
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. – The new OGL 1.2, What is Victory?
The new OGL 1.2, What is Victory?
Rob briefly touches upon the morality clause and links to this guest post by James Raggi IV on Tenkar’s Tavern:
If you implement these inclusivity/morality clauses, you are setting yourself up to be the arbiter of what exactly is racist. What is sexist. What is transphobic. You get to tell activists “no we don’t think that is really racist,” or you get to tell publishers to destroy their work because they’ve done a bad thing. And you get to do that over, and over, and over, and over, forever. – James Raggi IV - On Potential Inclusivity/Morality Clauses in RPG Licenses (OGL, ORC, etc)
– Alex 2023-01-20 18:01 UTC
---
Me, on the survey¹:
Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a destroys product lines that have nothing in common with D&D. If they are abandoned or aren’t worth it to their creators, other people like me can no longer build on it. You are destroying a market for other creatives that believed twenty years of Wizards of the Coast.
Do not deauthorize the OGL 1.0a.
Why are Classes, Spells, Monsters, and Magic Items not covered? What happens to all the games that used them? Suddenly we can no longer build on them? The legal risks are suddenly back like in the vs Mayfaire and Palladium games. That’s not helpful.
You are breaking other people’s business even if they have nothing to do with D&D. Mongoose Traveller 1st ed would be an example: Mongoose is not interested in old editions but I’m still interested in building on them.
It seems to me that you are claiming ownership to many things that are not copyrightable, like many common names for spells like „sleep” or mechanical aspects of the game.
I don’t trust Wizards of the Coast any more.
– Alex 2023-01-20 21:45 UTC
---
Jeremie Friesen on the suspected automatic upgrade to OGL 1.2 if you keep using the OGL 1.0a:
But all of this is expected in a corporate-backed public relations war of attrition. WotC will continue to set forth configurations; each with their own poison pill different in some way. Eventually, they’ll pull the trigger. ²
Based on this statement by Foundry Virtual Tabletop:
If a creator uses content from the SRD version 5.1 - the current version of the SRD which has been available since May 2016 - they implicitly agree to the terms of the OGL 1.2 license. This means that simply by publishing content that was developed under 1.0a and SRD version 5.1, many creators will unknowingly accept the 1.2 terms. – OGL 1.2 Response and Feedback
I think it wasn’t much of a secret: Since the OGL 1.0a is not authorized, even the old SRDs must either upgrade the Wizards shit, or rewrite from scratch. Free lunch is over. What they labelled as Open Gaming Content, was in fact poisoned – or so they want to make us think.
Foundry Virtual Tabletop makes some more good points in their post.
We all die alone.
And we’re getting to the virtual tabletops which I don’t use. Those parts are bad, too!
I really hope this ruins Wizards of the Coast.
– Alex 2023-01-21 22:13 UTC
---
Anybody who ever wrote a SRD thinking they’d be helping their neighbor by using the OGL is finding out that they wasted all these hours. If you want to switch away from the OGL 1.0a you might have to pull all the products you don’t want to update because Wizards of the Coast says that this automatically means you are agreeing to the OGL 1.2. It appears that nobody wants to fight them in court. The distributors also won’t. This destruction of a commons is the work of despicable villains.
– Alex 2023-01-22 08:18 UTC
---
@thoughtpunks says:
“Rules are not copyrightable” is *technically* true but outdated as a truism. Just not that simple. There’s 50+ years of software rulings & copyright rulings with expansive ideas of infringement & expression. Truth is nobody knows the line. It’s unsettled.
– Alex 2023-01-22 12:33 UTC
---
@AlegisDownport on Cepheus engine and the like:
Where does this leave publishers such as Independence Games, Stellagama, Moon Toad Publishing and Zozer? Upshot is at time of writing, we don’t know. … Mongoose is looking to produce a license allowing publishers to utilise material based on Traveller Open Content. I don’t know how much this will be like the MGT2e / TAS license which I suppose you could call a precursor to WotC’s OGL 1.1. This license allows your published content to be considered for reuse as Mongoose’s and they can use it without recompense to you. – Mongoose and the Future of Cepheus Engine
Mongoose and the Future of Cepheus Engine
It refers to the following blog post where the villain is Mongoose Publishing:
There was some rejoicing today when Mongoose Matt of Mongoose Publishing announced “a brand new Traveller Open Content programme.” I’m not rejoicing; this new Open Content program confirms to me that **Cepheus Engine is DEAD!** … The Mongoose Traveller Open Content program is no different than what WotC tried to do with OGL 1.1. Mongoose is not a knight in shining armor coming to rescue CE. – TTRPG Roll 23-6: The open death of Cepheus Engine
TTRPG Roll 23-6: The open death of Cepheus Engine
– Alex 2023-01-22 15:52 UTC
---
Wizards of the Coast:
“This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.” – OGL 1.2 Draft
I still wonder what that means about making updates to a PDF. I understand copyright means I need a license to distribute both edited and non-edited copies. I suspect it means I am allowed to keep the PDFs and I am allowed update the PDF but I cannot distribute (”publish”) the edited PDF. In other words, that’s something that I am already allowed to do. This is snake tongues. What it means is: No more updates. No more building on what went before. Unless I upgrade to the OGL 1.2 and continue to publish the otherwise unchanged PDF.
At this point, they need to be extra specific because my trust is exactly zero. It’s been 17 days of this trash fire.
– Alex 2023-01-22 17:44 UTC
---
The reasons I’m so angry with Wizards of the Coast is that they are actively destroying a commons. Plus the indignation of their thanklessness after having benefited for twenty years as well. It goes to show that we should never anthropomorphise corporations: they are evil artificial intelligence meta-organisms eating our world.
On a personal level, I’m also extra angry with Wizards of the Coast because I can’t say “told you so!” – I had a bad feeling about the OGL and then I let it pass. I was unhappy in 2012 and let myself be hypnotised by the large crowd of happy onlookers who kept saying, nope, it’s going to be great – instead of digging deeper and uncovering the festering poison hidden in its depth.
Perhaps no company would have jumped on the band-wagon back in the days of D&D 3.0. These days, however, as a consumer that is active online, that acts as an independent publisher like most of us do and wants to distribute derivative works in campaign wikis, blog posts, PDF documents, etc. – these days I find the CC BY SA license or the public domain to be much preferable to the OGL. – 2012-04-26 OGL vs CC BY SA
– Alex 2023-01-22 21:10 UTC
---
A way forward, away from anger:
These are loosely categorized and described briefly. If I found something short that could give you a good handle on the system, I also put it in as a link (usually a page-by-page review of it, or in the case of smaller ones, a direct link to the RPG itself). Most things on this list either don’t have a unified task resolution system or they use the basic d20 model, so I really only noted exceptions (and usually only when that exception is one of the most notable things about the system). This is, obviously, nowhere even close to an exhaustive list. – Oh God There Are So Many RPGs (A Guide)
Oh God There Are So Many RPGs (A Guide)
– Alex 2023-01-23 11:08 UTC
---
Just read through the list of alleged copyright violations TSR brought to court.
@randomwizard writes:
In 1992, TSR Inc. had a lawsuit against Games Designer Workshop, that alleged the newly published MYTHUS: Dangerous Journeys infringed on their Dungeons & Dragons intellectual property. The following link shows a long list of what parts of MYTHUS they thought copied something from D&D. The case was eventually settled out of court. – TSR vs GDW
(Mythus was written by Gary Gygax, one of the authors of early D&D.)
– Alex 2023-01-23 12:29 UTC
---
Here’s one of the few positive reactions to the OGL 1.2. An important counterweight to my doomer comments, I feel.
@wincenworks writes:
It will doubtlessly improve as Wizards of the Coast spend more time tweaking it, elaborating on it, providing more non-legalese guidance etc. But as it is, it’s fine – 99% of people who use it would never notice any difference from the OGL 1.0a whether its the improvements, or the limitations. It also makes it clear they’re taking the necessary steps to outmode the OGL 1.0a in a generally responsible manner, to an extent it will be difficult for the vast majority of people to claim they’re harmed by it. – OGL 1.2, contracts and getting sued
OGL 1.2, contracts and getting sued
– Alex 2023-01-25 06:22 UTC
---
Wow! What a surprising turn of events.
We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.You choose which you prefer to use.
I’m … I’m speechless, I guess.
Hard to believe, I know. 😆
– Alex 2023-01-27 20:21 UTC
---
A touch surprising!
– bluetyson 2023-01-27 23:12 UTC