Results 271 to 300 of 1473
Thread: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 10:23 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2013
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Oh I just noticed sections 1(b) and 1(d) are also mutable (via dependance on a separate document). The latter is not a big deal but the former is. They can change the terms for VTTs at any time they want.
Last edited by OldTrees1; 2023-01-19 at 10:28 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 10:28 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Wotc currently doesn't even have to tell what in the work is offensive. At least at that point it could be changed and republished.
Heck, the work itself can be completely fine, but because you got a speeding ticket, boom license revoked. Don't engage in illegal activities if you want to publish books about breaking into strongholds, killing the inhabitants, and taking their stuff.
-
2023-01-19, 10:33 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2016
-
2023-01-19, 10:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I actually do have a "better alternative". It's pretty simple...NOBODY gets to have an effective monopoly on the market and simultaneously establish themselves as the morality police for what is acceptable in a TTRPG. Developers and audiences can decide that for themselves, they don't need Mommy of the Coast "thinking of the children".
That would be the best for everyone involved. Corporations should not get to decide what is considered "moral", especially when most of the people in charge of them have no morality. Unfortunately due to board rules I cannot bring up specific examples of how our society has been changed for the worse when this was allowed in the past, but I'm sure you can think of a few if you've been following the news over the last 15 years or so.
I agree. What I meant to call out was the few people throwing the word "cynical" around as a dismissal of any questioning of Wizards' and Hasbro's motives. I've seen at least one person say that if you don't take their words (the "apology") 100% at face value, you're being "cynical.".Last edited by Rynjin; 2023-01-19 at 10:35 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 10:45 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I didn't omit that passage, I addressed it in the following section:
Specifically, I think the termination clause Paizo includes and WoTC's termination clause are different because they are different types of licenses. PF2E is under the OGL, so you can take and publish compatible material with it and they have no right to terminate. If you want the 'Pathfinder 2e compatible' sticker on it, you need to accept an additional license. From their FAQ
Originally Posted by Paizo FAQ
So, to get back to your original point: Paizo doesn't have the sole right to decide, so long as something compatible with PF2e is published under the OGL only. But WoTC does have the sole right to decide, for anything published under OGL 1.2.
Addressed above--Paizo cannot pull the trigger for OGL material.
But here we are entirely at the mercy of what WoTC decides is or isn't inclusive. I understand that you trust them to decide that in an appropriate manner. I, and others, do not. It's easy to imagine a scenario in which WoTC moves in a direction you would disagree with. How would you respond if WoTC unilaterally chose to do something you thought hurt inclusivity?
I don't know much about morality clauses. I'm increasingly of the opinion that the PF2e model Psyren showed us is a reasonable one--a broadly open license, and a more restrictive one for more closely related material.
-
2023-01-19, 10:48 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 10:51 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
-
2023-01-19, 10:56 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
-
2023-01-19, 10:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
"You can choose to publish under the license or not" is a choice everyone has. Yes, I know the PCL is meant to work in conjunction with the OGL rather than preventing someone from publishing under the OGL alone, so it's not a perfect parallel to 1.2; I brought it up more as a way of pointing out that ORC, which will get heavy input from Paizo during its creation, is not likely to be the free speech absolutist paradise some folks here seem to be angling for.
I've already said I'm okay with removing the "thou shalt not sue" language from that clause, and possibly even okay with adding "general public" as the standard. But I'm definitely not in favor of Rynjin's "no clause" approach.Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 10:59 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
And that restriction in the license doesn't even really accomplish their "core goals". Especially now that the parts that most people consider "D&D" (ie the core mechanics) aren't even under the OGL and so aren't restricted by that license. You can make a Racists and Sexists splat that claims compatibility with D&D 5e without even touching the OGL.
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-19, 11:02 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2011
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Avatar of Rudisplork Avatar of PC-dom and Slayer of the Internet. Extended sig
GitP Regulars as: Vestiges Spells Weapons Races Deities Feats Soulmelds/Veils
-
2023-01-19, 11:04 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
That remains to be seen. The people at Paizo helped draft the OGL and support the OGL, so my belief that ORC will be similar to OGL is merited.
That's fine. I'm still interested in, and you still haven't explained why, you think the clause is so beneficial to the TTRPG community to be worth the effect on 3PP.
What benefit am I as a member of the TTRPG community seeing from this?
-
2023-01-19, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)
-
2023-01-19, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2016
-
2023-01-19, 11:11 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-19, 11:15 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
-
2023-01-19, 11:21 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-19, 11:27 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Let's step back a second. There are degrees of vagueness, this is at the extreme side of vague. At a minimum it needs an intentionality and deliberate clause, as otherwise the issue comes down to readers response and not the authors intent. This is, in my professional opinion, extremely poor standards for interpreting anything, but is stifling for the industry as a whole. , often the readers spout off on Twitter wothout fulfilling their epistemic duties. Someone woth no sense of irony starts taking a villain and paints this as if the author intended him or her to be a hero. A film was shelved a few years ago, over an issue by groups, for example, thst should have understood that the film viewed them a good bit more sympathetic than they realized. I've been in conversations where people have angrily inserted themselves on objectively incorrect information (they thought we were discussing a overnight world leader rather than someone who had long been dead). The clause therefore as it stands is defective from the standpoint of rationality, it is rather unworkable for anyone that wants to produce anything that isn't pablum, because one can never really know what someone will claim about your work due to their own failure to read carefully, and ask the right questions before trying to form a twitter mob.
But it needs a bit more than this, again because someone has to comply with the license and that requires a better definition of what you are complying too. There is what lawyers might call no due process here, and that is concerning to me as a thinker. The burden of proof is on the person claiming someone's work is derogatory. This seems to imply they can, and will reverse what is the reasonable standard of a rational society and require the victim of a mob to prove his work is innocent rather than require someone to prove his work is guilty.
It should be something that any creator will say, not until something less vague is in place. Which brings us back to the similarity problem and the need for more to be placed in the CC, at least until the courts start hearing cases.
-
2023-01-19, 11:29 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2011
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Originally Posted by Atranen
Suppose some version of their Spelljammer issue happened with a 3PP. In WoTC's case, they published an errata and apology online, and that was that.Originally Posted by White Blade
The rewriting of the Hadozee show that WotC can believe it is acting in good faith and doing diligence and then be persuaded (totally voluntarily) to take down the content.
-
2023-01-19, 11:31 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jul 2019
- Location
- Los Angeles, CA
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Here's the official statement. I won't go into detail here, but searching the keywords from that should give you relevant results.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1334...on-the-hadozee
-
2023-01-19, 11:32 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Last edited by Unoriginal; 2023-01-19 at 11:35 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 11:34 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Sep 2015
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Indeed. I'm aware of some of the worst case situations that have arisen in recent history with 3PPs. But they've already demonstrated to me repeatedly that their definition of "bad things" is far wider than that worst case in their recent decisions for their own products, far beyond reasonable. They don't have malice at all. But when your position is driven by extremes, it often results in actions that are identical to those that have actual intent to do harm.
Using this as justification for deauthorizing 1.0(a) is the proof in the pudding. They are doing harm by attempting to deauthorize.
(By the way "intend malice" is like saying atm machine. )Last edited by Tanarii; 2023-01-19 at 11:43 PM.
-
2023-01-19, 11:35 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2009
- Location
- Perth, West Australia
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
-
2023-01-19, 11:40 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Do we? Do we really?
The OGL doesn't allow you to use copyrighted material. And they can't copyright game mechanics in the first place...
The main benefit of OGL 1.0 was knowing that you wouldn't have to enter petty legal battles against a billion-dollar corporation because they claim your elves and wizards are too similar to theirs... And the "O"GL 1.2 doesn't even offer that. Quite the opposite, actually. It destroys any security any creators could have. Even if the final updated OGL actually has good terms on it, what's stopping WotC from trying the same BS a year from now???
What's anyone actually gaining from using the OGL 1.2? A pat on the back from Hasbro/WotC before they inevitably abuse it?
Hell! Even the "deauthorization" idea is not something that's supposed to be allowed, as clearly stated by the very creators of the OGL multiple times over the years! The very fact that WotC is attempting to do it shows that they are more than willing to use their resources in a court of law to argue anything that would benefit them, no matter how disingenuous or dishonest.
Because why create a good product when you can just stifle competition, bully small creators and steal their money?
...And these are the people we are supposed to trust with absolutely incontestable decision power on what's harmful, immoral or offensive? Yeah... No.Last edited by Lemmy; 2023-01-19 at 11:52 PM.
Homebrew Stuff:- Lemmy's Custom Weapon Generation System! - (D&D 3.X and PF)
Not all heroes wield scimitars, falchions and longbows! (I'm quite proud of this one ) - Lemmy's Homebrew Cauldron
You can find all my work here.
-
2023-01-19, 11:54 PM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Feb 2017
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
A different incident, but a notable one given the current thread topic, was the rewriting by WotC of the "Book of Cylinder" adventure in Candlekeep Mystery, and the nature of the rewrites made the original author want his name removed from the work.
WotC was entirely in its legal right to change the adventure as it pleased them (since they did purchase it, after all) and that they had no obligation to inform the author of those changes, as he says so himself.
With that OGL 1.2, WotC wants to have essentially kind of legal power over every single piece of content produced under their license (as in, if you wrote X and they want Y, you either change to Y or your content doesn't hit the stores), and they're the ones to decide what is offensive or hateful or morally wrong.
I reiterate: the same people who approved the changes described above and chose to not warn the author he was promoting an adventure that no longer existed as he described it to potential customers are the ones who decide what is offensive or hateful or morally wrong.Last edited by Unoriginal; 2023-01-19 at 11:54 PM.
-
2023-01-20, 12:00 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jan 2006
- Location
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I think part of the issue here is that what might need to be questioned is whether WotC should be allowed to achieve all of its "core goals" without losing as much if not more support than they already have.
In other words: are their "core goals" actually defensible?
Are their "core goals" legitimate? Or are they stalking horses for something else?
Do their changes actually support the "core goals" in the best and least disruptive way possible, or are the things they do as "side effects" the actual, unspoken, wink-and-a-nod-we-promise-we-don't-mean-it goals?
But, again, are what they list as core goals something that the pushback should be aimed at persuading them to drop or change?
-
2023-01-20, 12:05 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Jun 2021
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Wow thanks, I had no idea the bar was set by WOTC that low.
If they want to recall their products that is their business, but applying a bar this low to someone else's work would be intellectually indefensible. Parallels and construals are not strong enough to make the types of claims this article is making.
Yeah, that is why this is statement is too vague--something more is needed to have a standard that can be objectively applied and it really needs words like deliberate and intentional. I'd never publish something under this, it would be foolish.Last edited by ToranIronfinder; 2023-01-20 at 12:09 AM.
-
2023-01-20, 12:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Nov 2015
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
I don't really understand all the legalese and terms being tossed around, but from what little I can tell, this OGL thing sounds like it only applies to for-profit content and not freely distributed material. Is that accurate?
-
2023-01-20, 12:09 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- May 2016
- Location
- Corvallis, OR
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Yeah, that's only the most recent example of WotC's "standards" being way more...extreme...than anything I'd consider sane to apply to anyone else's content. Sure, they can do whatever the heck they want with their own product, but when you're exercising life-or-death over someone else's content? Yeah. No thanks.
At this point, it applies to anything that
a) includes mechanical content (so it's not covered by the fan policy)
b) uses material from the non-CC portions of the SRD (so basically any class information, species information, magic items, anything from a monster at a minimum).
Commercial vs non-commercial matters not in the slightest.Last edited by PhoenixPhyre; 2023-01-20 at 12:11 AM.
Dawn of Hope: a 5e setting. http://wiki.admiralbenbo.org
Rogue Equivalent Damage calculator, now prettier and more configurable!
5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 693 MM, Volo's, and now MToF monsters: Updated!
NIH system 5e fork, very much WIP. Base github repo.
NIH System PDF Up to date main-branch build version.
-
2023-01-20, 12:12 AM (ISO 8601)
- Join Date
- Oct 2010
- Gender
Re: Official OGL Discussion Thread
Any restriction they impose will be a step down from 1.0a which barely had any (besides "no product identity" anyway.) I sympathize with that, and I don't expect to be able to sell you or anyone on it; all I can say is that I understand why the move makes sense from a business standpoint. And it's true that WotC's customers may not see the benefits of that for quite a while. The real goal of this updated license is future-proofing.
Plague Doctor by Crimmy
Ext. Sig (Handbooks/Creations)