The draft OGL v1.2

THE_Leopold · January 20, 2023, 01:01:04 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM

That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

Because They Can(tm) and Fuck You That Is Why(R)

DocJones · January 20, 2023, 05:52:47 PM

Is there a link to this survey so I can tell them to pound sand?

jhkim · January 20, 2023, 06:42:38 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM
Quote from: S'mon on January 20, 2023, 03:39:44 AM
Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.

Here is what bugs me even more. OK let's pretend they can retract 1.0 for material THEY released under it (I don't think they can either but go with me on this).

They're claiming, I think, they can retract 1.0 for OTHER COMPANIES and things those other companies released under it.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 20, 2023, 12:23:16 PM
That seems an absurd position to me. What do the think is the source of their legal right to end someone else's sub-license?

Because of the legal language of v1.0a, I think that's the only way that they can revoke it is by "de-authorizing" for everyone. The only lever they have over the SRD is that the license itself is written and copyrighted by them. There is only one clause that could remotely be read as revoking the license, and that is via the specific language of changing license versions - section 9, "You may use any authorized version of this License".

I don't think that it holds water, because the nature of authorization isn't described in the OGL, and they clearly stated in their own FAQ that the OGL is permanent. But that is their excuse.

Corolinth · January 20, 2023, 07:02:46 PM

Hasbro wants all of the third party publishers to stop making D&D content. It actually doesn't matter whether or not they can de-authorize the OGL. If everyone gives them the finger and stops producing D&D content, Hasbro still gets what they want.

Given their dogged insistence on deauthorizing the OGL, I think Clownfish TV is right. Hasbro is trying to either sell D&D or license it out for a shitty mobile gacha video game, but they can't get anyone to pay them for the rights unless they kill the OGL.

Spinachcat · January 20, 2023, 08:07:52 PM

Quote from: migo on January 20, 2023, 04:49:37 AMAlso, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

Excellent point.

Anything released under 1.2 onward is on a timer on WotC's hidden clock.

While now inevitable (unless a judge rules on the OGL 1.0), it is just another risk to the 5e/6e publishers must consider as they produce "unofficial but authorized" content.

Spinachcat · January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

GeekyBugle · January 20, 2023, 08:13:30 PM

Quote from: Corolinth on January 20, 2023, 07:02:46 PM
Hasbro wants all of the third party publishers to stop making D&D content. It actually doesn't matter whether or not they can de-authorize the OGL. If everyone gives them the finger and stops producing D&D content, Hasbro still gets what they want.

Given their dogged insistence on deauthorizing the OGL, I think Clownfish TV is right. Hasbro is trying to either sell D&D or license it out for a shitty mobile gacha video game, but they can't get anyone to pay them for the rights unless they kill the OGL.

IF the reports are correct WotC makes most of the profits for Hasbro, of course this probably means MtG and not D&D, I can see Hasbro selling the rights for a video game but not the IP perse, unless it's doing so bad it has to be unloaded to someone, and I doubt it, but hey, it's possible, not probable but possible.

Chris24601 · January 20, 2023, 08:14:40 PM

Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?

Each print would effectively be its own publication meaning you can print it on demand right up until the new OGL goes into effect. Then you either have to update to the OGL1.2 or cease offering it.

Welcome to Hasbro continuing to try and get what it wants, just with less obvious wording.

Jam The MF · January 20, 2023, 08:20:22 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:14:40 PM
Quote from: Spinachcat on January 20, 2023, 08:11:34 PM
Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 08:27:20 AMOf particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

How does that legal definition work in the age of print on demand?
Each print would effectively be its own publication meaning you can print it on demand right up until the new OGL goes into effect. Then you either have to update to the OGL1.2 or cease offering it.

Welcome to Hasbro continuing to try and get what it wants, just with less obvious wording.

I'd continue printing, right up until WOTC's stop publishing date. Then I'd continue to sell what I had printed prior to that date, which WOTC had identified. While that stock was being sold off, I'd use that money to fund my next Non-WOTC product. Just be sure that the publishing date inside the cover, is prior to WOTC's bullshit date.

danskmacabre · January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM

Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

GeekyBugle · January 20, 2023, 11:21:11 PM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:11:41 PM
Looks like WotC has opened up the core rules to Creative Commons
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

This excludes stuff like Beholders, etc...

Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

To put ANYTHING under ANY CC license you first need to have the legal right, which means having the copyright, and you can't copyright mechanics.

danskmacabre · January 20, 2023, 11:23:52 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:21:11 PM
Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

Well, they're certainly trying to

GeekyBugle · January 20, 2023, 11:29:39 PM

Quote from: danskmacabre on January 20, 2023, 11:23:52 PM
Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:21:11 PM
Nope, the core MECHANICS, something they can't copyright, ergo they can't put under CC By, unless they're talking about THEIR expression of the mechanics.

Well, they're certainly trying to

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

danskmacabre · January 20, 2023, 11:36:43 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 20, 2023, 11:29:39 PM

Lets assume they're talking about their expression, lets also assume they do go through. What does it mean?

Nothing, they're "giving" you something you already have.

I don't know enough about USA copyright or whatever to dispute what you're saying.

I think what they're getting at is anything in DnD that isn't content specific, such as "Melf's minute meteors", "Beholders", "Forgotten realms" and so on is what they've opened up.
I don't know if they can own that core content or not, but they seemed to have bowed under pressure and officially given it up anyway, whether it was theirs to give or not.
In the end, we end up at the same place. So whether they originally owned it or not, it's irrelevant at this stage.

Ruprecht · January 20, 2023, 11:37:03 PM

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 20, 2023, 08:20:22 PM

I'd continue printing, right up until WOTC's stop publishing date. Then I'd continue to sell what I had printed prior to that date, which WOTC had identified. While that stock was being sold off, I'd use that money to fund my next Non-WOTC product. Just be sure that the publishing date inside the cover, is prior to WOTC's bullshit date.

WotC will go after Lulu and Drivethru.