[HN Gopher] Dungeons and Dragons' new license tightens its grip ...
___________________________________________________________________
Dungeons and Dragons' new license tightens its grip on competition
Author : ndiddy
Score : 114 points
Date : 2023-01-05 19:03 UTC (3 days ago)
(HTM) web link (gizmodo.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (gizmodo.com)
| sidlls wrote:
| I prefer the Harnmaster rule system anyway. Too bad that system's
| creators/estates are in a slapfight with each other, too.
| Macha wrote:
| I think this is interesting to software people because the OGL is
| clearly inspired by open source licenses, being mostly a
| permissive license but also borrowing the "or later" clause from
| GPL, which is herein being abused to try intimidate older license
| version users and secure additionally rights for Wizards
| themselves.
|
| I suspect it won't succeed if it ever does end up in a courtroom,
| but it does raise some interesting questions about where the line
| is. e.g. GFDL 1.3's Wikipedia can convert from GFDL to Creative
| Commons clause is arguably a similar claim to the idea that
| Wizards can now use OGL 1.0 content royalty free on the surface.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| " By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have
| to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order
| to comply with the updated rules."
|
| Is this rug-pull actually true and legal? Seems like a horrible
| agreement to enter into for this reason.
| philipwhiuk wrote:
| Not a lawyer but I don't see how you can revoke a perpetual
| license. If it expired after a period sure, but it doesn't,
| that's what perpetual means.
|
| So it'll be a problem for new products but not for stuff that was
| licensed under OGL 1.0 already
| teeray wrote:
| > how you can revoke a perpetual license
|
| The way the US justice system works is if you have more money
| than all of your opponents, you win.
| einpoklum wrote:
| ... against domestic opponents. What about those based in
| other countries?
| teeray wrote:
| when it comes to IP, you'd have to ask the RIAA/MPAA
| Akronymus wrote:
| They can't. They sure as hell are trying to/imply being able
| to, though.
| wolverine876 wrote:
| In the law, perpetual and irrevocable are different. See here:
|
| https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...
| eadler wrote:
| "perpetual" and "irrevocable" have two different meanings in
| licencing law.
| [deleted]
| keypusher wrote:
| From OGL 1.0: 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for
| agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a
| perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive License with
| the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.
|
| 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may
| publish updated versions of this License. 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.
| https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/OGL%20License
|
| From Gizmodo: One of the biggest changes to the document is
| that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is
| "no longer an authorized license"
|
| Some more background on the terms:
| https://www.larsenlawoffices.com/can-terminate-perpetual-lic...
| crooked-v wrote:
| That part in section 9 doesn't say that it invalidates the
| part in section 4, though. Reading it strictly, claiming an
| earlier license is "unauthorized" would merely mean that you
| can't use the earlier license to redistribute content put out
| under the later license, not that you can't use the earlier
| license at all.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _" [The OGL 1.1] takes a strong stance against bigoted content,
| explicitly stating the company may terminate the agreement if
| third-party creators publish material that is "blatantly racist,
| sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise
| discriminatory."_
|
| I'd just like to point out that such a license, if applied to
| software, would violate the zeroth essential freedom of free
| software, _" The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any
| purpose"_ And for good reason. That clause essentially gives WoTC
| the right to revoke your license at any time for essentially
| arbitrary reasons if they subjectively decide your content is one
| of those bad things.
|
| Where is the line between a game depicting discrimination and the
| game material _being_ discriminatory? When Morrowind depicted
| racist slavemaster Dunmer who shout _" N'wah"_ at you, and
| allowed the player to align themselves with such factions, was
| that a depiction of racism, or was the game material itself
| discriminatory? I think you could make good faith arguments in
| either direction. Normally finding the line between the two is up
| to everyone to decide for themselves, but in this new license,
| WotC gets to decide the line is wherever they want, whenever they
| decide to snuff you out. Even if the other terms of the new
| license were agreeable, this term makes the license a trap for
| any business that would compete with WoTC.
|
| https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en
| beholder922 wrote:
| I don't want racism in my game about different races fighting
| each other.
| [deleted]
| tptacek wrote:
| The D&D rules aren't free software, and WOTC has branding
| concerns that free software projects don't have. The
| intellectual property issues here are somewhere between those
| of Mickey Mouse and those of Linux.
| rhdunn wrote:
| Not all games and other material published under the OGL
| references/uses the WotC SRD (System Reference Document) or
| D&D material (beholders, magic missile, etc.).
|
| The license changes also affect any non-PDF content, which
| would include D&D/OGL game streams and YouTube videos, and
| virtual table tops publishing OGL material (including those
| for Pathfinder, Call of Cthulhu, etc.).
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _The D &D rules aren't free software,_
|
| My point is they wouldn't be, even if the rules were
| software, because the violate the zeroth essential software
| freedom. I bring this up particularly because the earlier
| versions of the OGL are compared to free software licenses in
| this thread. This new license is nothing of the sort.
|
| > _branding concerns_
|
| That's not special to tabletop gaming, software has branding
| too and there are certainly advocates for adding "no evil"
| clauses to licenses, like Douglas Crockford. But addressing
| such concerns in the license makes that license non-free.
| tptacek wrote:
| I think everybody in the world is pretty clear about the
| fact that OGL 1.1 isn't comparable to a FOSS license. It
| requires revenue reporting and a 25% royalty on all gross
| returns above a threshold! It's a commercial license, and
| an onerous one.
|
| Everything has branding, but products and projects exist on
| a spectrum of sensitivity to branding issues; the
| representation in media of a Disney character would be at
| one far end of the spectrum, the uses an open source image
| editor were put to might be at the other. WOTC's D&D IP is
| somewhere in the middle.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with then. Or are
| you agreeing with me?
| tptacek wrote:
| I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn't a FOSS license,
| the morality clause is the least of the issues. I have
| two rebuttals to your original post: first, there's no
| pretense that 1.1 is a FOSS-comparable license, and
| second, there are obvious reasons why, even if they had
| done a more FOSS-acceptable 1.1 in every other regard,
| they might still need the morality clause.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _I mean, of all the reasons why 1.1 isn 't a FOSS
| license, the morality clause is the least of the issues_
|
| The Zeroth Freedom is the most important, the freedom to
| use it.
| tptacek wrote:
| If what you're saying is that an exclusive, intrusive
| commercial license without a morality clause is more in
| the spirit of FOSS than a non-exclusive, non-intrusive
| free-use license with a morality clause, well, (1) that's
| a take, (2) I don't agree at all, and (3) we can probably
| just agree to disagree. At any rate: we've identified the
| disagreement, so let's take that as a win.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I believe that morality clauses are the greatest threat
| to Free Software, particularly because they _seem_ like a
| reasonable abridgement of the zeroth freedom when
| considered at first glance, and it is sometimes difficult
| to advocate against such abridgement without having nasty
| accusations thrown against you. Of all abridgements to
| software freedom, morality clauses seem to have found the
| widest popular support among people who style themselves
| as supporting Free Software.
| [deleted]
| crooked-v wrote:
| > Where is the line between a game depicting discrimination and
| the game material being discriminatory?
|
| One bit of context here to keep in mind is that there have been
| tabletop releases that have been incredibly clearly on the far
| side of that line, wherever you might define it - think
| "literal Nazi propaganda packaged as an at least nominally
| playable game". I haven't personally seen any use the OGL 1.0a
| specifically, but there are probably some out there.
|
| Of course, since the OGL 1.0a doesn't imply any particular
| business relationship with WotC or allow any special
| association with the D&D brand, any "need" to actually police
| the OGL 1.1 like this is basically just self-inflicted from how
| they're conflating what were previously two separate agreements
| (one for mechanics, one for branding).
| LarryMullins wrote:
| > _One bit of context here to keep in mind is that there have
| been tabletop releases that have been incredibly clearly on
| the far side of that line,_
|
| What is "incredibly clear" to you is not necessarily clear to
| others. I know for a fact that some people consider games
| having a "dark elf" race to make the game itself racist, and
| consider much that was normal in fantasy media in the 80s and
| 90s to be deeply problematic today. Including much of D&D.
| The game even having racial classes with different
| characteristics is offensive to some people.
|
| Normally this is simply a point of low-stakes debate between
| players, but when you add such a clause to a license the
| subjectivity of the matter becomes a liability to anybody
| that would make commercial use of the licensed material.
| crooked-v wrote:
| The "incredibly clear" cases I'm talking are games like
| RaHoWa, where the objective of the game is to play white
| people and kill all minorities, who oppose you with
| abilities based on offensive racial stereotypes.
| LarryMullins wrote:
| There is no assurance that enforcement of such "no evil"
| clauses will be limited to such incredibly clear cases.
| Given the general anti-competitive behavior of WoTC,
| there is good reason to think it wouldn't be.
| tptacek wrote:
| Again, I think at this point everybody is clear that
| there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the owners
| of the 1.1-encumbered WOTC IP are going to be
| magnanimous, open-minded, or tolerant in any way. What's
| weird is that we're stuck on this side-show of an issue.
| 1.1 probably doesn't even _need_ the morality clause; it
| probably gives Hasbro enough power to revoke any specific
| relier 's license for any reason or no reason at all even
| without the morality clause. If that's the case, all WOTC
| is doing with the morality clause is being nice enough to
| warn you about something that was true either way.
|
| In reality, the morality clause is probably a response to
| some high-profile tabletop RPG stories involving Nazis;
| in other words, it's a marketing move, not a legal one.
| nitwit005 wrote:
| Copyright law does not extend to the rules of games themselves
| (you may notice video games copy mechanics all the time), so it
| just seems like this will result in people jetesoning references
| to their original creatures.
| javajosh wrote:
| How much of the value in DnD is the specific taxonomy of names?
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| Like "magic user" or "fighter"? seems pretty generic to me.
| barbariangrunge wrote:
| Step one: build up a huge ecosystem, companies that depend on
| this ecosystem. Step 2: revoke the old agreement and give 7 days
| to accept a new one.
|
| What an epic bait and switch
| notart666 wrote:
| Yep that's how a monopoly works.
| dragontamer wrote:
| Except Pathfinder is literally right there. Wizards of the
| Coast has no monopoly.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| That's a non-sequitur. Monopoly is about being powerful
| enough to engage in anticompetitive practices and the rest
| of the market not being able to just ignore you, which WotC
| certainly is here.
| keypusher wrote:
| This rules change is aimed specifically at companies such
| as Paizo. Pathfinder is based on 3.5e, which was covered
| under the OGL, and going forward they must pay 25% of their
| revenue to WotC, and cannot sell any content for the system
| outside of printed material (no video games, etc)
| dragontamer wrote:
| Only for content Paizo makes that's based off of OGL 1.1
|
| What's WotC going to do about all the Pathfinder books
| out there? Round them up and burn them? Those Pathfinder
| books are still licensed OGL 1.0 by Paizo.
| pessimizer wrote:
| Who could possibly be claiming that WotC is going to go
| from house to house looking for already purchased
| material under a license that was entirely legal at the
| time?
|
| Also, all copyrights and patents are monopolies. To say
| that D&D has a monopoly on D&D after revoking permission
| for the public to create content based on D&D can't be
| controversial.
| dragontamer wrote:
| > Who could possibly be claiming that WotC is going to go
| from house to house looking for already purchased
| material under a license that was entirely legal at the
| time?
|
| Cool. So I copy Pathfinder 1.0's rules, using the license
| Paizo gave me in the Pathfinder 1.0 rule manual. Its
| almost the same system as D&D 3.5, but the license is
| from Paizo, not from WotC.
|
| If WotC lawyers come after me, they can pound sand.
|
| > Also, all copyrights and patents are monopolies. To say
| that D&D has a monopoly on D&D after revoking permission
| for the public to create content based on D&D can't be
| controversial.
|
| They gave it away using OGL 1.0. There are now game
| systems based off of Pathfinder (itself, also an OGL
| game). Does WotC's sudden revocation of the license
| somehow apply to my Pathfinder books?
|
| They didn't even write Pathfinder. It'd be insane for
| them to try to revoke my Pathfinder license of OGL.
| tptacek wrote:
| Why is this insane? It seems like you're simply
| describing derived works. The reason derived works are so
| reliable in open source software is that the license
| grants used to do the derivation are irrevocable. But
| licenses are revocable by default; GPL goes out of its
| way to be irrevocable. The concern (and Hasbro's recent
| statements) is that 1.0a does not.
| crooked-v wrote:
| Copyright doesn't cover game mechanics, just the specific
| expression of them.
|
| There are even entire game lines that mechanically
| recreate older editions of D&D in their entirety, all of
| which are entirely legal under copyright law.
| Bombthecat wrote:
| Network effect, same as no one is switching to new
| messagners.
| trynewideas wrote:
| Percentage of games on Roll20 in Q1 2014:[1]
|
| Pathfinder: 24%
|
| D&D 5E: 20%
|
| In Q4 2021:[2]
|
| D&D 5E: 55%
|
| Pathfinder 1E+2E+Starfinder: 5%
|
| Pathfinder 1E, 2E and Starfinder all rely on OGL 1.0a
| content.
|
| 1: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-
| report-...
|
| 2: https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-report-q4-2021/
| crooked-v wrote:
| The problem with using those numbers as-is as an
| indicator of game system popularity is that Roll20 sucks
| for non-5e systems and a lot of people have jumped ship
| to Foundry VTT [1], which has much better mechanical
| support for various game systems.
|
| [1]: https://foundryvtt.com
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| A someone who _currently_ plays in four weekly games, I
| don 't know a single person that has actually switched
| from Roll20 to Foundry, despite me recommending it and
| everyone agreeing it's the superior product in many ways.
|
| Roll20 still has the overwhelming supermajority of the
| VTT market, Foundry is the Linux of VTTs.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| we did, about a year ago.
|
| Some of us use d&d beyond with it, some not. I think the
| dungeon master prefers foundry much more than roll 20.
|
| What it took was the dungeon master saying we shall do
| this, a session or two to work out the kinks, and one
| other player who gained expertise enough to explain game
| play mechanics (e.g., use the x key) to the rest of us
| (to offload some of that burden from the dungeon master)
| Dobbs wrote:
| I play PF2e and the entire community seems to have
| switched from Roll20. At least all of the DMs in the
| online living world I was part of, my regular games, and
| all of the PF2e games I see listed on various LFG
| subreddits.
| BryantD wrote:
| The methodology for these numbers changed in Q2 2019[1],
| so I don't think it's safe to compare 2014 numbers to
| 2021. However, Q2 2019 is well before FoundryVTT exited
| beta, so it is safe to look at the 2019 numbers and draw
| conclusions about online play: D&D 5e:
| 51.87% Uncategorized: 14.27% Call of Cthulhu:
| 9.48% Pathfinder: 6.46%
|
| [1] https://blog.roll20.net/posts/the-orr-group-industry-
| report-...
| [deleted]
| musicale wrote:
| I tend to think that the explosion of compatible d20 system RPGs
| in the 2000s was a good thing.
|
| The 5e OGL also seems to have been good for gaming, and for D&D
| as well. D&D is certainly bigger than ever.
|
| As I see it, D&D, Pathfinder, Green Ronin, etc. are all on team
| RPG; Wizards would do best to focus on expanding the hobby and
| making players happy, largely by producing high-quality D&D
| tabletop games and associated products, and supporting high-
| quality D&D-derived video games, movies, TV, novels, comics,
| etc..
| wolverine876 wrote:
| Another corporation embracing the hyperaggressive narcissistic
| ethos, as if there are nothing else - no other stakeholders, no
| goodwill, no future, no community, no employee value, no public
| image etc. - besides making money now. Hasbro is being pressured
| by investors to monetize their IP more.
|
| It matches the authoritarian, anti-democratic, drive for power in
| another domain (and often by some of the same people). Nothing
| else matters.
| [deleted]
| rhdunn wrote:
| This is already having an effect on the community, as people like
| The Arcane Library (https://www.youtube.com/@TheArcaneLibrary)
| are shifting away from using/referencing the OGL despite having
| pre-prints of material using the OGL.
|
| I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent so
| far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making a
| statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect
| statements).
| tormeh wrote:
| They haven't been silent:
| https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1410-ogls-srds-one-d-d
| rhdunn wrote:
| That's posted Dec 21. The OGL 1.1 leak happened on Jan 4th.
|
| They mention that the OGL 1.1 will only apply to static
| (ePub/PDF) and printed media, and the revenue terms, but they
| don't mention the other OGL 1.1 changes that have been
| causing the current storm, such as:
|
| 1. revoking OGL 1.0a;
|
| 2. the 1.1 license giving WotC/Hasbro the irrevocable ability
| to use your content in any way they want to;
|
| 3. their ability to terminate your 1.1 license for any
| reason;
|
| 4. their ability to update the terms to the license with a 30
| day notice.
| wpietri wrote:
| Wow. Very "what's yours is mine, what's mine is mine".
| greenknight wrote:
| > I also find it interesting that WotC/Hasbro have been silent
| so far (both regarding releasing the official OGL 1.1 or making
| a statement about the leak to correct any factually incorrect
| statements).
|
| Probably because they are trying to figure out damage control.
| this leak only happened on thursday.
|
| I would expect a response during the week with them
| backpeddling a bit.
| ck425 wrote:
| What's interesting(/blows my mind) though is that
| unsubstantiated rumours about the new OGL started going
| around weeks ago. This caused a massive amount of concern and
| outrage among the community, to the extend that WoTC actively
| moved up their communication timeline and responded with a
| post on DndBeyond containing more info about the new OGL (a
| far more reasonable version) to try and reassure the
| community and stop the fearmongering. That was all before
| this leak.
|
| Yet despite all that they've suddenly come out with this
| draconian agreement which is worse than most of the rumours
| that had already caused a huge outrage.
| voakbasda wrote:
| I grew up on D&D in the 80s, but I will steer my kids away from
| it over these kind of shenanigans. The publisher is demonstrably
| untrustworthy of its fans.
| crawsome wrote:
| Gygax rolls over in his grave
| panzagl wrote:
| Ehh, I think you need to read some history on D&D/TSR- Gygax
| was happy to try to squeeze Arneson out, and to threaten other
| RPGs
| TillE wrote:
| I would specifically recommend "Game Wizards" by Jon
| Peterson. Gygax comes across as a pretty huge jerk, though
| Arneson isn't entirely sympathetic either.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| What specifically falls under the license? Surely not the rules
| or mechanics, only the particular expression of those. The art,
| sure. Maps, sure. Not sure you can claim right over "orc",
| "dragon", "wizard" or any of that.
| alasdair_ wrote:
| After seeing what WotC did with the Android: Netrunner license
| (they pulled it just as the game became extremely popular), I'm
| not surprised they are doing the same thing to D&D.
|
| Building on top of a WotC-owned IP seems like a bad idea, since
| they will likely change the license once your product stqrts to
| get big.
| suprjami wrote:
| I wonder if this will affect future WotC success, like how
| Google are reknowned for cancelling products so Stadia was
| doomed from day 1.
| trynewideas wrote:
| The OGL was always, always, always a trap, and it's sad to see it
| snap shut. The time for Paizo and such to move on from it was
| with Pathfinder 2E, but they didn't, and now the depressing part
| happens.
|
| The other shoe to drop is the actual play community. Critical
| Role is all but in-house already and probably won't be affected,
| but smaller creators trying to monetize their 5E content are
| going to start feeling the noose tighten.
|
| > The original OGL granted "perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive
| license" to the Open Game Content (commonly called the System
| Resource Document) and directed that licensees "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." But the updated OGL says that "this agreement
| is...an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is
| no longer an authorized license agreement."
|
| > The new document clarifies further in the "Warranties" section
| that "this agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content
| and, unless otherwise stated in this agreement, any prior
| agreements between Us and You are no longer in force."
|
| The hinge of the trap in OGL 1.0a is the "any _authorized_
| version " part, here in its more full context:[1]
|
| > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may
| publish updated versions of this License. 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.
|
| Hasbro has the money to make legal challenges to that
| prohibitive, and no other company in the space has remotely
| similar resources. Good luck, suckers!
|
| 1: http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html
| Macha wrote:
| So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4
|
| Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your
| own lawyer" thoughts were:
|
| 1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but
| it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable
| because:
|
| - other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and
| the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being
| non-revocable
|
| - the zection on termination only provides for breach of
| contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from
| being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing.
| The fact that it provides some grounds for terminatioj but "we
| have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument.
|
| - There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in
| the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative
| content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified
| benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product
| increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights
| to use the covered content.
|
| - The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance
| especially when combined with past clarifying public statements
| where Wizards official documents and then-active employees
| indicated it was intended to be non-revocable.
|
| - Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses
| require 35 yeara and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a
| court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of
| revocability than this
|
| However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use
| content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get
| access to 6e content.
|
| They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL
| 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser
| restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point,
| but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the
| previous license and raise the reliance part again
| wolverine876 wrote:
| That attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's
| an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the
| opposite:
|
| https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-
| tal...
| tptacek wrote:
| That post says that the revocability of 1.0a is an
| unsettled question. There's some precedent in open source
| licensing that would be hopeful for people hoping to stick
| with 1.0a, but nobody knows for sure.
| throw0101c wrote:
| Meanwhile the guy that wrote the license says:
|
| > _I reached out to the architect of the original Open
| Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan
| Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by
| WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new
| one._
|
| > _He responded as follows:_
|
| >> _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._
|
| * https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-
| cannot-de...
|
| If intent matters in contract law, then the intent of the
| license was (per WotC and its representatives at the time)
| for it to be non-revocable. WotC had publicly stated that
| this was their intent:
|
| > _7. Can 't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a
| way that I wouldn't like?_
|
| > _Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what
| will happen to content that has been previously distributed
| using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even
| if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could
| continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your
| option. In other words, there 's no reason for Wizards to
| ever make a change that the community of people using the
| Open Gaming License would object to, because the community
| would just ignore the change anyway._
|
| * https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wiz
| ard...
|
| Further:
|
| > _Q: What is meant by the term "Open Gaming"?_
|
| > _A: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied,
| modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that
| material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain
| permanently Open._
|
| * https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wiz
| ard...
|
| So was WotC lying about intent in the past, or are they
| lying about intent now? If there was deceit, does that open
| them up to civil action?
|
| Regardless, it's doubtful that anyone has the money to
| battle WotC/Hasbro to settle this in court.
| jrochkind1 wrote:
| I wouldn't say that they say the opposite. They simply say
| that WotC/Hasbro has stated that they have revoked 1.0a,
| and whether this is possible or not would be something that
| would be worked out in court.
|
| Those are just facts, not a legal opinion on whether it is
| revokable at all.
|
| > I do believe that there are potential legal challenges to
| the revocation of OGL 1.0a, especially given the length of
| time Third Party Creators have relied upon OGL 1.0a and the
| speed with which WotC has taken action to revoke it.
| However, these challenges would have to take place in
| court.
| giardia wrote:
| A slight tangent, but it's funny how everyday people are on
| the hook for legal consequences, even when legal
| professionals can't agree which laws apply, or even what
| they mean.
| heavenlyblue wrote:
| If it went to court then the legal professionals would
| agree?
| bee_rider wrote:
| They would agree on what the ruling was, and agree that
| it sets some kind of precedent on some level, but not
| necessarily that it was good.
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| That is why there is the old joke that in a town with
| only one lawyer the lawyer starves but business picks up
| when there are two.
| jonnycomputer wrote:
| I'm not sure what you mean with 2E. It's a near total rewrite,
| isn't it?
| bee_rider wrote:
| These "d&d" podcasts seem to basically be playing rules-light
| systems with a some d&d styling, I bet if WoTC tries to really
| enforce anything they'll say "switched to dungeon world" and
| that'll be the end of it. It would probably be a more accurate
| reflection of the play style anyway. (I mean d&d is great
| because most people aren't, like, professional voice actors and
| improv pros, the structure that Critical Roll and their ilk
| don't need is why us normal people might want the system in the
| first place!)
|
| I'm mostly worried about the folks posting settings and
| adventures on drive through RPG, it seems like they have a ton
| more exposure. :(
| LordDragonfang wrote:
| This comes directly on the back of Hasbro's CEO (D&D's parent
| company) complaining that D&D is "under monetized" and that they
| want to grow the revenue through "the type of recurrent spending
| you see in digital games."
|
| https://kotaku.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-fifth-edition-on...
| kelsolaar wrote:
| Unrelated to the license, I have been using ChatGPT to create
| dialogs, extended descriptions, translations, and many other
| things to complement adventures.
| Waterluvian wrote:
| I was thinking about how ChatGPT might be a reasonably decent
| way to flesh out game depth. Fallout 4 has a ton of hand-
| crafted content, but the "Radiant" quests are just so obvious
| and thin.
| kelsolaar wrote:
| It has been quite good for my DnD5e needs so far!
| LarryMullins wrote:
| I have never played D&D but I have some very limited experience
| with matrix games for wargaming, which I understand to be
| similar. Can somebody explain the scope of the ruleset(?) that
| was being licensed under this OGL license? How much would you
| need to change a game based on OGL licensed rules to make it
| independent of WotC?
|
| Specifically, what does this mean?
|
| > _Much of the original OGL is dedicated to the System Resource
| Document, and includes character species, classes, equipment,
| and, most importantly, general gameplay structures, including
| combat, spells, and creatures._
|
| If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and
| "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you? Or
| is this pertaining to games that specifically reference D&D
| documents in their rules?
| crooked-v wrote:
| You can see pretty much the whole original SRD here:
| https://www.d20srd.org/index.htm Everything in the first two
| columns is the stuff from that turned into a nice web format.
|
| > If your tabletop roleplaying game has an "orc" species and
| "rogue" class and "sword" equipment, is WotC going to sue you?
|
| There are plenty of games that already have those. In fact,
| there's an entire sub-genre of D&D-like game ("OSR") designed
| around directly emulating older editions of D&D, based on the
| fact that you can't copyright game mechanics themselves, just
| the text that expresses them.
| BlueTemplar wrote:
| So what _exactly_ have WotC managed to trademark here ?
|
| "Orc" would be trademarked for a RPG, but not a book, movie,
| video game ?? (Wait, is this why Game Workshop's Warhammer's
| are OrKs ?!)
|
| That is why Pathfinder might have issues, despite having
| replaced basically all the proper names and stories ??
| crooked-v wrote:
| They've trademarked "Dungeons and Dragons" branding and
| those bits of the D&D brand that are actually at least
| somewhat unique rather than directly based on other fantasy
| sources (this is part of why, for example, tieflings are
| fairly prominent in newer editions).
|
| There are plenty of things in D&D that would be protected
| by neither copyright nor trademark because they aren't even
| close to being original or unique to D&D: fighters,
| wizards, orcs, dungeons, dragons, taverns, elves, gnomes,
| the list goes on and on...
| johnnyo wrote:
| Yes, Warhammer tries to give their stuff unique names for
| copyright reasons.
|
| They aren't Space Marines anymore, they are Adeptus
| Astartes.
|
| And the Imperial Guard? Those are Astra Militarum.
| Symbiote wrote:
| "Orc" is Old English and is used in Beowulf.
|
| "Ork" is a 1990s idea of a cool spelling, like "magick".
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orc
| jltsiren wrote:
| Tolkien preferred "ork" in his later writings. There is
| some discussion of the spelling in his guide to
| translating names:
|
| > It should be spelt ork (so the Dutch translation) in a
| Germanic language, but I had used the spelling orc in so
| many places that I have hesitated to change it in the
| English text, though the adjective is necessarily spelt
| orkish.
| giantrobot wrote:
| What WotC is trying to do now is say their new license
| invalidates the old license and magically everything under
| the OGL 1.0a is now licensed as OGL 1.1. The System
| Resource Document has a lot of non-trademarked content
| under the OGL 1.0a. Anyone could use those non-trademarked
| items under that license without any sort of issues.
|
| They don't have a trademark on the word "orc". They have IP
| covering a fictional "orc" species for a role playing
| system with some statistics and basic descriptions. This
| generic "orc" entity was licensed under the OGL 1.0a for
| anyone to use in their own games. Paizo and others based
| the "orc" species on the SRD.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-01-08 23:00 UTC)