Everything Wrong with OGL 1.2
Вставка
- Опубліковано 19 січ 2023
- The OGL (Open Gaming License) is reportedly undergoing some changes from WOTC (Wizards of the Coast) and Hasbro that we should all be weary of. The new OGL 1.2 draft is here and NEEDS community feedback!
Kyle Brink, Executive Producer for Dungeons & Dragons has brought us a new OGL draft and a short summary in his own words. But are those words misleading?
I am not a lawyer and this is not legal advice
SOURCES:
OGL 1.2 Draft: www.dndbeyond.com/attachments...
DNDBeyond Post 1: www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1423-...
DNDBeyond Post 2: www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1428-...
DNDBeyond Post 3: www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-...
Live Roleplay Dungeons and Dragons streams on Twitch every Wednesday at 7:00PM CST! Come hang out with us at / constructedchaos
Discord: / discord
Instagram: / constructedchaosdnd
Facebook: / constructedchaosdnd
Patreon: / constructedchaos
New episodes posted on Mondays along with various Dungeons and Dragons videos and content about printing and painting terrain in between! What other videos would you like to see?
Be sure to tell us what you think in the comments and please enjoy!
#opendnd #dnd #dungeonsanddragons - Розваги
Concerning the current situation. What ever you do please don't Sign any OGL sent out by Wizards.. By signing any updated OGL they will likely send to creators, you are recognizing and thus empowering their right to "revoke" OGL 1.0a. They don't have this right. So don't sign, simple. In fact, don't sign anything from Wizards. We have what we need, the rest of this is them muddying the waters, and should be mostly ignored. The Wizards are casting Illusions, "Disbelieve". Meanwhile ORC FOREVER! {Also NEVER sign away your rights.} Boycott all Wizard and Hasbro products including the new movie. We need to send a clear message that we the people will not put up with them, and their strong arm tactics. We hold the power, not them. #DNDBegone
That is sortof the crux of it isn't it? At the end of the day, their truest goal may be just to revoke the previous OGL legally by having creators sign on to this. But, in my mind, if we can get this to a good place and get a document that is TRULY irrevocable in OGL 1.2, then isn't that more or less the same?
Just spent an hour pouring my heart out into the WoTC survey on the new OGL. I don’t know if anyone is going to read any of it but at the very least it was mildly cathartic.
Based on their recent tweets, they are paying attention. I think we've given them little choice.
i feel that we should still look into the ORC, OGL and find someone to run it.
Oh without a doubt. But the ORC is just a concept right now. It's not written yet. When that gets into the production phase, I'll definitely be watching closely.
I had cramp in my stomach for 2 weeks now... hopefully this is a good path. Dugeon Dudes personal message is like i was writing it....
Yep I think this does bode well overall. We just can't let up yet.
They do not have to deauthorize the old OGL, the original OGL already has a clause to cancel someone’s right to use it if need be..
That's a fair point, honestly. Is that how they handled the situation with the TSR stuff?
@@ConstructedChaos TSR has nothing to do with a fight over OGL, it is a fight about who owns the trademarks to StarFrontiers. WOTC or TSR. That fight would exist regardless of OGL, and if they did use OGL they are in violation because they used trademark IP of WOTC, not because it is or is not immoral. If they had an agreement to use the trademark IP of WOTC involved with Star Frontiers (they do not per WOTC ) then there would have been a morality clause in that SF agreement. They may very well have made an immoral work because they wanted to bait WOTC into court and TSR wins the trademark. And if it is proven WOTC owned it then they can terminate the product, because it is an OGL work that uses their trademark which triggers the OGL1.0a revocation clause - they broke the rules of the agreement. But if TSR owns star frontiers they can do whatever they want with the property, and suffer market consequences if it is immoral (like get socially canceled so nobody buys it)
The OGL1.2 argument should not be about what should be in a morality clause when that is not even the place for it to begin with, its only purpose is to claim OGL1.0a revocation is needed when it is fact not (at least not for morality reasons, wotc needs it for monetization reasons)
@@yarnevk I didn't say that it did...
@@yarnevk But I was more referring to the stuff that happened wherein someone was trying to publish a not-very-kosher campaign setting in which trans people didn't exist explicitly. I seem to remember WOTC having to fight to get that taken down under their license and I believe that is why they look to include something here.
@@ConstructedChaos What does a game mechanic use have to do with the WOTC brand names, nothing because OGL specifically prohibits using brand names. And what if China buys HASBRO (like they already bought movie studios) and decides trans people do not exist and changes the policy accordingly making your work with trans banned - all because you said they roll for (dis)advantage?
I do not see that there is really anything to talk about at this point. Hasbro/WotC's intentions have already been made clear. Without the original OGL in place or one that guarantees even more freedom for 3rd party creators....the game as we know it is dead. The only reasonable action at this point is to withdraw all support for Hasbro/WotC. The game will never be what the players deserve under their leadership. Staying on board the sinking ship is not recommended.
I can totally understand where you're coming from. It's why I plan to begin pivoting into other TTRPG content alongside D&D while this all levels out. No one can predict the future but it is undeniable that the ship is currently taking water and I'd like to have one foot on dry land should the worst come to pass.
Everyone, PLEASE keep in mind that we're in the Cold War phase of this fight. WotC hasn't changed. They've shown us who they are. They're just adjusting their strategy. They still intend to run the table, they're just going with a more subtle strategy at this point.
Absolutely. We cannot stop pushing back now.
@@ConstructedChaos I have not - I just completed the survey and I included in every box, "Rule 0 - DO NOT revoke the OGL 1.0a or de-authorize it under any circumstances. Any other response is unacceptable."
@@thanatossoultaker2986 well done!! Submitting my response shortly
@@ConstructedChaos Thanks and I must say, it was interesting to see how they broke it down.
If one positive that can be drawn from this whole situation, it is that I have never felt more United with the community at large. Nothing like a common cause to unify all adventures.
You're absolutely right about that!
The community is starting to fracture
@@JB-wc9cr Just in time for WOTC and Hasbro to cave in!
When they announced the feedback opportunity to the new OGL I was looking forward and thought I might actually participate there, but after reading the OGL 1.2 draft, I realised how fed up I am an how little they understand the community. I say let the game die, we don't have to worry about rights if the company simply goes bankrupt and nobody wants to touch the mess they made.
This comment makes me sad but I totally understand where you're coming from, friend. Rest assured that, regardless of the outcome, I will be making other TTRPG content and showcasing new systems to help the various members of this community find new systems that work for them!
Keep in mind that Kyle probably isn't involved in the creation of the OGL and is just a face/scapegoat in this situation.
Absolutely he is. This is very likely the work of a PR firm that stepped in after WOTC bobbled their initial response.
Unfortunately, I cannot trust WOTC to have the reins of what is "hateful" or "obscene" content. They have the money (and the lawyers) to knuckle down on third party publishers who dispute. The community have done a good job of rallying behind good products and not buying products they find to be obscene. Also, using that and NFTs as scapegoats to stop publishers doesn't sit right.
Absolutely I agree with you. Though, based on their newest twitter posts, it seems like they're going to be changing both the "hateful content" clause and the VTT policy! Now, if we can just get them to make it truly irrevocable...
Foundry VTT has a very good breakdown of how many ways their proposed license is bad for anyone who signed it
Oh thanks for sharing! I'll have to take a look at that.
DMs and Rules Lawyers Unite
Yes indeed! To thwart the powers of evil, we must!
They already had a morality clause that coexisted with OGL1.0a decades ago. It was called the d20 logo license. It was an optional add-on if you wanted to have compatibility branding with WOTC or you could go even further with D&D branding to use IP (beholder) and trademarks (D&D). Paizo has long used a similar thing for using their trademarks and IP. or marking compatiblity. Moralism is pretty much a standard agreement in any company branding and IP, but fundamentally needs to be revocable and not perpetual because times and owners and society changes (for better or worse)
That has nothing to do with an irrevocable perpetual OGL which is only for the copyright expression of the mechanical rules that can be used in other games and specifically forbids brand association use of D&D trademarks and IP as banned by the 5.1 SRD. So there is no need to revoke OGL1.0a for morality reason as that already had a legal solution.
Even OGL1.2 has a clause that no brand endorsement or association is granted or implied by using the SRD materials, which continues to also forbid use of trademarks. So that moralism clause can be booted into a brand association trademark/logo optional agreement which completely defeats any argument about should it (or not) exist- just do not use the logo if you do not like it or use it if you do - you can still use the rules for stuff nothing to do with 5e (Pathfinder) or live with WOTC not marketing your 5e materials (MDCM).
You have to ask yourself what other reason they might have for wanting to revoke OGL1.0a if it is not actually morality? The answer is simple 5e competitors to D&D books (as they originally stated last month was a goal) because 6e is supposed to be 5e compatible, so how can they monetize 6e if people continue to do 5e materials they cannot monetize? Wait you say the document backed off from monetizing, no the document does not say it will not monetize it says nothing. They can still revoke the OGL1.2 as it is not irrevocable and replace it with a monetizing 1.3 a; or they could just DD&B monetize just like they do with DMG and put the royalty into the 3p/homebrew uploads in DD&B.
Well I think the trouble they had with TSR is why they're arguing the necessity for a morality clause. But they do appear to be stepping it back and clarifying what falls under it.
@@ConstructedChaos, I'd like to point out that a LGBT book was almost removed from DMs Guild because of a morality license and the reasons given would require them to remove materials they published themselves that were available (soft nudity, sexual innuendos and things like that).
And the new OGL says that they are the sole arbiter and that it is not only for things in the published material, but also actions done by the people who created them.
One of the criteria mentioned is "illegal actions", witch can be inconsistent, because if you post the image of Putin with make up in front of the rainbow, that's ilegal in Rússia, but not in the rest of the world.
And you can't take any action against them fot it.
The passage about them using something like what you created says that you can only sue for money (on the basis of breach of contract, not on infringing copyright laws), you can't stop them from producing or selling, and that you have to prove that they consciously and intentionally copied from you, witch means that they can basically make a nearly identical copy and you have a nearly impossible case to prove.
But if you make something that slightly ressembles what they did, they can take the licence from you and you can't sue them in any way.
Also, if any part of the license becomes legally unenforceable (witch might already be true) they can cancel the entire thing.
And it is important to notice that nearly all contracts are not like that (I'm not a lawyer, but I've read quite a few contracts), most of them say that the clauses are independent and that they unenforceability of part of them do not interfere on the validity of the others if they can work without that one, and that in this case, the involved parts will work in good faith to adjust the invalid ones so they can work as closely as it was originally intended for them.
People like you are proof that WotC's "morality clause" smokescreen is working better than we all hoped.
If the further define it to the point where they can't enact it without reason, I'm not sure I see the problem.
I just sold my whole collection
Wizards went to far this time
Sad to see you go but I can't say that I blame you! Expect a series of videos detailing new TTRPGs on the channel soon.
Apathy is starting to seep in and there are channels saying to move on
Well, they did back down. And I'm planning to stick things out with DND. But I'm also diversifying into other TTRPG content.
for me to be honest, i don't care as much anymore about whether someone else report unverified news that's against WOTC. here are 2 reasons:
1. even if not true, WOTC's corporate direction is the same: "monetize dnd". this will cause the downfall of the game. it may not be through the OGL but will happen eventually. See what they did to MTG. see what monetization has done to large sections of the console and mobile gaming communities. Hasbro/WOTC can't be trusted anymore to be steward of not just the OGL, but the game itself.
so yes, if someone else's unverified report help bring WOTC/Hasbro down, i'm all for it. my goals have changed. i'm not about saving the OGL anymore. I'm about saving the actual game itself. Saving it from WOTC/hasbro. or at least their current upper management. I'd like to see dnd under new management or in the hands of a different company. That only happens if the current wotc/hasbro upper management falls and fails.
i was calling this when they 1st announced that they plan to monetize dnd, that something bad was about to happen. people told me to shut up and stop being a negative nancy. then the OGL happened. So i'm saying it again now. Something worse will happen after this. Fixing the current problem isnt enough. Cutting off the head of the snake/excising the virus is needed. Wotc/hasbro is the virus plaguing dnd. they have to be removed.
2. if someone reports unverified information against wotc/hasbro, i'm all for it. yes it results to fearmongering and unfair vitriol directed toward wotc/hasbro but i don't care. my objective now is about taking wotc/hasbro away from dnd before they do what they did to MTG to a game i love. my only concern is that vitriol and negative feedback be directed properly. it's not supposed to be directed to frontliners and game designers. it's supposed to be directed at the executives making these judgement calls. if they receive vitriol for unverified information, imo, they deserve it. people should stop protecting them. they are a billion dollar company. they don't need protection. they don't need coddling or enabling.
so yes, i'm going to write my name in the sand on the side of dnd shorts here. i dont see anything wrong with what dnd shorts did aside from just not specifying clearly who the hate should be directed to. i'm on the side of anyone who wants to bring wotc down. As someone who understands how corporations work and seeing how patterns tend to repeat themselves, this wont be over even if we win the OGL. far from it. wotc/hasbro have to be taken down or at least dnd has to be stewarded by a different company.
after all the lying wotc/hasbro has done, imo they cant be trusted. they will find a way a to sneak in loopholes anyway. only way i start to trust them again if they walk back trying to monetize dnd which i'd bet my grandma's life they will never do.
I can totally understand your take here, Rob. But I just don't feel that it's right. It can be hard to fight the uphill battle when the ones at the top of that hill aren't playing fair. But I think it's worth fighting and worth fighting the right way. WOTC would have us believe that they hold all the power, but we are strong enough to break their resolve without having to stoop to their level.
@@ConstructedChaos i think thats fair. The right way, the wrong way... before all of this is over... there will be heroes, there will be those who gets their hands dirty, there will be those who make the tough calls... either way, i'm just done with WOTC/Hasbro at this point and just want to see them fall. In the immortal words of tony stark: "whatever it takes."
yeah, no thanks. still to many bad things - and in -NO- way do I want Wizards to be able to determine what speech I may use in a product I publish. Especially since they can change that over time.
Absolutely agree! We need to give them this feedback so they know they can't pull one over on the community. At best, it was a mistake they made in the present that would be taken advantage of in the future.
@@ConstructedChaos I will give feedback as soon as the survey goes live. Starting with an objection to de-authorizing or revoking the 1.0a OGL. Oh, and I neglected to mention, Wizards is retaining the rights to not only control your speech in published products, but what you say across social media as well. Crazy and insane. Whoops...that may itself be a violation...
@@thanatossoultaker2986 It takes a pretty bad faith interpretation of what the license says to arrive there... but I cannot blame you for interpreting it in bad faith. We shouldn't give them any wiggle room.
@@ConstructedChaos I have lost my faith in WotC because of all their own actions. I'm not a publisher or creator, I'm a DM...who has bought 90% of their products for my group (even if I just read it and didn't use it) since 1977 (yeah, TSR to Wotc). I buy lots of products, even 3rd party products...sometimes just to collect them. This is an obvious attempt to strangle-hold the RPG community with both Table Top and VTT and I find it disgusting and feels like I am losing an old friend. But I solidly stand with all you guys and gals out there who oppose what WotC is doing.
@@thanatossoultaker2986 I’m so sorry to hear that. I know this must be especially painful for you. But I am at least somewhat comforted in knowing that the community at large is standing together on this and will find a new home if need be.
I would be more sympathetic to WotC if they would hold out a single, real world example - just one - in which they can't deal with the things they purportedly object to under OGL 1.0(a). I've heard nothing on this, so I strongly suspect this is all smoke for monopolistic and anti-competitive practices.
If they just said that they were abandoning the OGL for 6th edition like they did for 4th, they could have avoided all this, but they want to crack down on any compatible activity they don't control.
They said they were cutting out the royalties, but they don't specifically disclaim royalties either. They said they were cutting the license-back clause, but in its place they've simply neutered your ability to challenge them when they steal your content. They place game rules they would have a hard time convincing a court were copyrightable into one of the most restrictive creative commons licenses to avoid having to defend them. These aren't concessions, they're SPIN.
Bottom line, they've said they can't change the license, but then have included manifold ways to change or invalidate the license, which would then allow them to implement any terms they like in the next iteration. This is also why they want to "deauthorize" (whatever that means - it's legal gobbledygook) 1.0(a) - so that people can't use it as a fallback to escape their draconian terms.
Don't let them win, don't give them your money, and don't shut up. Convince your table to play something - anything - that doesn't require you to pay WotC. Boycott Hasbro products in your personal life and suggest to your friends they do the same. Don't teach new people to play D&D, but rather Pathfinder, Castles & Crusades, GURPS, whatever Black Flag winds up being, or any of the other fine TTRPG's out there. If you're as mad as I am, and you're a forever GM like I am, maybe refuse to run D&D for your table anymore after you finish your campaign like I did. We're playing Pathfinder now because nobody else wants to GM and find another player to replace me.
We may not be able to win, but we can certainly make sure WotC gets their just reward for defecating on our tables.
That's totally fair. They obviously have an sketchy motive in all this. But I feel the community is keeping them honest. I really do think we can keep them from inventing any new ways to screw us over. But, in the event that they do anyway or in the event that I also get too bothered to keep fighting it, I'll have no problem moving on to something else.
We don’t need no stinking corpos. There are much better games out there, lets help them grow!
Absolutely! Even outside of the OGL results, I plan to start checking out more TTRPGs and making videos on those in the future.
Honestly just ignore the part where Kyle pretends to be a fan of DnD. Corporations always do this. Witcher writers pretended to be fans, rings of power, willow, velma, etc.
Kyle probably hates DnD as much as the execs.
Hahaha while I get where you're coming from, I will at least pretend to give them the benefit of the doubt. Nothing good ever comes from assuming what we don't know for sure.
@@ConstructedChaos
I mean him being a fan or not makes no difference when Wotc is screwing us over.
@@dnaseb9214 Oh for sure. There's no denying that. Don't worry, Kyle hasn't escaped my ire.
I would love to see the TSR versions included, but it probably will never happen.
I'm a 1e loyalist who would love to make third-party content.
I highly doubt they would ever even consider it. Probably not even a blip on their radar.
@@ConstructedChaos Probably so. I know they've always hated TSR's versions, which is why they gutted them. They're just sitting around waiting for the grognards to die off, I just wish they could show a little more respect for those of us who made the original game popular. Without us, there would have been no D&D at all.
This is the exact same license
I get where you're coming from but it really isn't. There is some progress here--though plenty of work still to be done.
framing language might be a little less sensational, idk, "fight" isn't the best word for the tenor of the community, kinda makes things seem all or nothing, and you know, primes people to act crappy. less mature people
That's a fair observation and definitely not what I intended with this video! I'll change it up. Thanks for the feedback!
@Constructed Chaos wait wow really?? that doesn't happen on the internet... i think I'm malfunctioning
@@ConstructedChaos holy crap they did, fair play, love the channel
@@laffingist218 Haha I'm always open to constructive criticism--especially when you make a solid point!
I'm going to respectfully disagree, Laffingist. The problem with bullies is that they're always in fight mode. They THRIVE when everyone around them doesn't realize the fight has already started. And WotC has DEFINITELY given us a master class on bully behavior lately.
I think we have gotten to minor issues now on the OGL.
The previous has a lot of this in it already (ask new TSR)
And a lot of it is. Just not as impactful as you think. You really can’t redefine what things that are legal terms in a document and it hold any water. So things like “Hate speech” (Looking at new TSR Gamma World again) is defined. They can’t take it to mean saying “My little pony sucks” is not hate speech but is you said “the brown ponies are clearly less intelligent as is true for all species”… getting there.
The VTT thing does not work because of one thing - ongoing effects. Ice on the ground. Lines of fire. Spell effects. All would be something a aGood VTT has to display. The point of a VTT is so show the battle field and being able to see where the arms of Hadar is may be important to the core function of the system. Also miniatures and art already exists for this and instant effects to measure distance and for fun. This means it is not always on the imagination and this would collapse instantly. A VTT main purpose is to be a digital map and status management system. They just have a poor definition written by a stupid lawyer.
Irrevocable is defined and any judge would kick any rider out. Each OGL is irrevocable and by releases it under the Creative Commons certain rules attach. I hope the lawyers looked that up and they can just delete that part (lol). Because you can look it up yourself- CC can’t be revoked. And you submit to it and you have summited to that.
Don’t get me wrong there is a lot we can talk about here but this is far closer to a improved 1.0a then 1.1.
(PS they can’t deauthorize and can still do this one. They would loose that in court and just let people run to the new shiny stuff - oh Pathfinder 2e
All solid observations. I agree with what you've brought to light and I'd rather fix it before anyone actually has to take something to court. As I'm sure you know, it would get messy and even more annoying than this--and that's saying something.
Hate speech actually has no legal definition in the US.
@@NecromancyForKids I didn't know that. Somehow it doesn't surprise me. Still, it does seem like WOTC is promising to clarify their meaning in the follow-up draft.