Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Atranen]

Language and culture change over time. Locking in a specific definition now is not helpful.

Agreed.

As a core goal, the alternative is no license at all. You could hold out hope that "ORC" does not include a similar clause I suppose, but given that Paizo's compatibility license includes a similar provision, and that inclusivity and having the means to oppose being associated with offensive content is one of the key areas where Paizo and WotC share common ground, I think your chances are slim.

Which provision in Paizo's license do you consider similar?

You've lost me here. I don't understand your argument or why you think having the clause is a good thing. The right response to me seems to be: "given that effectively realizing this 'core goal' through the license will restrict 3PP in a way that is unacceptable, we will not use the license to do so". That's all. It doesn't mean sacrificing inclusivity as a 'core goal'.

There is no "game." It's the best option and you have no better alternative.

The best option to me seems to let the players decide what content is and is not acceptable, rather than putting that power in the hands of WoTC. This method has had great success, for example with the Hadozee. The community has proven themselves to be better judges than WoTC on this issue.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The current version of that clause is identical in effect to "we reserve the right to cancel your license at any time for any reason without warning, and you have no recourse. But trust us, we'll only do it if we think you're writing Bad Things. No, we won't define those. And if we screw up...yeah, you're still SoL. But trust us." Which is not an acceptable license clause in any agreement, at least for me. There can be no meeting of the minds if I don't know what (at least with reasonable certainty) will trigger the end of the license. Which I can't, under those terms.

And WotC has completely forfeited any trust anyone had in them as good stewards or judges of what is right or wrong. At least in my eyes.

[ToranIronfinder]

Language and culture change over time. Locking in a specific definition now is not helpful.

And this changes the need to lock down a specific definition why, precisely? This assumes far too much that should not be. Some specific points might require vague, this is entirely too vague, but I think at core it needs to say "intentionally . . . " so we are dealing with authorial intent rather than reader responses. Also necessary and words like "deliberately provokes" "racial slurs" etc. You can have something that describes categories wothout being this vague.

And how about, letting a court decide when an impasse occurs? Afterall if you say a person is X you have the epistemic responsibility to prove it, he or she does not have the duty to disprove it, he or she logically must only demonsteate you have not proven your case.

[Psyren]

Which provision in Paizo's license do you consider similar?

"You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors."

And for good measure:

"We can terminate this License at any time, at our sole discretion."

You can certainly argue with them about whether "the general public would classify" but ultimately, the determination that you've failed to comply and the decision to revoke is theirs. And as noted in the second quote, they don't even need the first.

You've lost me here. I don't understand your argument or why you think having the clause is a good thing. The right response to me seems to be: "given that effectively realizing this 'core goal' through the license will restrict 3PP in a way that is unacceptable, we will not use the license to do so". That's all. It doesn't mean sacrificing inclusivity as a 'core goal'.

But it's not unacceptable. Not for them.

The best option to me seems to let the players decide what content is and is not acceptable, rather than putting that power in the hands of WoTC. This method has had great success, for example with the Hadozee. The community has proven themselves to be better judges than WoTC on this issue.

The players had no actual power in that instance (save the last resort of voting with their wallets) - they brought something to WotC's attention and WotC decided to do something about it. WotC were the ones who got to choose whether and when to errata the books, update people's DDB instances, what change was appropriate etc.

[Blackdrop]

There is no "game." It's the best option and you have no better alternative.

Now see, providing the TTRPG/D&D community with no alternative, a literal "our way or the high-way", doesn't seem terribly healthy.

Also!

That's not really answer to my question! So, once more unto the breach dear friends:

Please tell me why WotC having unilateral control to define what is offensive or hateful good for the health of the TTRPG community?

[EggKookoo]

Okay, so...

I scanned this thread earlier but I might have missed it if this was discussed. Does this update still essentially claim OGL 1.0 is deauthorized for everyone moving forward? Or only if you agree to the new one, be it 1.1, 1.2, or whatever version they'll end up with? I mean that's what it seems like it's saying to me. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

[SpyOne]

And after all the discussion... nothing will really change. WotC will lose some market share and a degree of control, mostly because this flap has raised the question of whether or not the OGL is even needed except in a few cases and there will be a couple of lawsuits that determine the exact boundaries of the IP claim (can they claim mechanics?). But they'll damage control and the vast majority of the players will go back to playing D&D because they love the IP and the game itself. It's the game everyone uses to date themselves. I've been playing since version X. They aren't going anywhere. Ten years from now they'll be saying "I survived OGL".

Actually there is potential for a significant change, although whether for good or ill is up for debate.
An investment group with several percent of Hasbro stock has been pushing to make WotC a separate company, on the grounds that such a move would increase value for the shareholders. Their position is that the value of an independent WotC would be similar to the current value of Hasbro, so being part of Hasbro is clearly dragging WotC's value down.
In response, Hasbro executives have been asked by shareholders what they are doing to increase the value of WotC, and this may well be the source for some of their ... questionable recent decisions.

If Hasbro executives did something that significantly harmed the value of WotC, that would provide ammunition to those arguing that the responsibility to maximize value for shareholders requires that they make WotC a separate company.

Whether that would prove to be good or bad for gaming in general and/or D&D specifically is something I am not remotely qualified to guess at. But it would definitely be a change.

[Atranen]

"You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors."

So to compare:

No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful,
discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal,
obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you
covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

You must use your best efforts to preserve the high standard of our trademarks. You may not use this License for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors.

A crucial difference to me seems to be the 'general public would classify as' vs. 'We have the sole right to decide'.

Regarding termination, the PF2e license seems to be for licensed works that bear the compatibility logo and font etc. As far as I'm aware (although I don't play PF2e), you can still publish PF2e content under the OGL as long as you don't use the compatibility logo and font etc. Terminating this kind of license is a different beast than terminating the OGL wholesale.

But it's not unacceptable. Not for them.

It may be acceptable to WoTC that 3PP get a raw deal. But that's entirely separate from the question of whether it's good for the game or not. Given the negative effects on the game, WoTC should consider it unacceptable.

The players had no actual power in that instance (save the last resort of voting with their wallets) - they brought something to WotC's attention and WotC decided to do something about it. WotC were the ones who got to choose whether and when to errata the books, update people's DDB instances, what change was appropriate etc.

As we've seen, public pressure and voting with your wallet are very effective means of making producers comply with the community's wishes. The community led the charge, and WoTC responded.

So why not trust the community to lead the way in the future?

[ProsecutorGodot]

Okay, so...

I scanned this thread earlier but I might have missed it if this was discussed. Does this update still essentially claim OGL 1.0 is deauthorized for everyone moving forward? Or only if you agree to the new one, be it 1.1, 1.2, or whatever version they'll end up with? I mean that's what it seems like it's saying to me. I just want to make sure I'm not missing something.

It is deauthorized for further use, not for continued use in products that already use it. All published content currently under OGL 1.0a will continue to use it and is under no obligation to update to the new license. New content cannot use 1.0a and as such must agree to 1.2, or whichever number takes its place when its made official.

[Brookshw]

Am I correct in understanding this only applies to the 5.x SRD and not the 3.x Srd, and if so what happens there as OGL 1.0a is deaithorized?

I'm biting my lip pretty hard while I write this and watch this thread for reasons I'm sure you recognize, my apologies if this answer is (intentionally) vague. The deauthorization clause of 1.2 eliminates the 1.0a license from further use other than through the safe harbor provisions provided in the updated OGL. If there's no such license other than as permitted through the safe harbor provisions, then the use of content that was dependent upon its existence would lose that tie in. The OGL 1.2 is a license, an offer for a contract, you do not need to accept it.

If a mod wanted to clarify what constitutes "legal advice" I'd be much appreciative, its hard not to discuss the details of these clauses without discussing what they mean.

To the discussion of 6(f), WoTC has repeatedly asserted that such protections are a core tenant of this change to the license; in every negotiation you get to a point where the other side simply won't budge, and you have to decide if you want to accept where you landed in that negotiation, or walk away. It seems that 6(f) is such a point. I get it that people may be unhappy, and may decide to walk away (and most certainly will scream into the void that is the internet), but expecting WoTC to clarify it seems futile (and leaving it vague isn't uncommon), at this point it seems that the clause is very much a "take it or leave it".

And WotC has completely forfeited any trust anyone had in them as good stewards or judges of what is right or wrong. At least in my eyes.

Not for nothing, but can you think of an instance where WoTC went after someone's use that you think should have been allowed? Don't forget, they don't need this clause to take action, all they're really doing is putting people on notice.

[EggKookoo]

It is deauthorized for further use, not for continued use in products that already use it. All published content currently under OGL 1.0a will continue to use it and is under no obligation to update to the new license. New content cannot use 1.0a and as such must agree to 1.2, or whichever number takes its place when its made official.

Interesting. That will either be challenged or just push companies to ORC, I guess.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Interesting. That will either be challenged or just push companies to ORC, I guess.

To play a bit of devils advocate, the terms of 1.2 are pretty close to OGL 1.0a. If we can get them to concede in meaningful ways in the areas that are (from my opinion) obviously included to allow them to back out of allowing a license without all of the awful stipulations they included in the first wave of leaks then it wouldn't be the end of the world that 1.0a is deauthorized.

It's unlikely that OGL 1.0a will survive this (I still think we should argue for its survival) but we should also identify where we can change 1.2 to make it the most like 1.0a while doing our very best to trim out any wiggle room for them to pull this sort of stunt again.

If that doesn't happen, even under the best conditions I don't see people placing what little is left of their trust back with WotC.

[KorvinStarmast]

Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

Alea iacta est

We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action

Something I learned in a business law class: you can't actually force people to forfeit their legal rights unless the two parties enter into a binding contract where one party explicitly does so. This license does not appear to me to be such a vehicle ...but maybe that was true 30+ years ago and isn't now?
IANAL, and EULA's a plenty seem to have challenged that from the computer world for the past two decades.

[Damon_Tor]

NCSoft? Those monsters who contaminated modern South Korea's video game market with an abhorrent Pay to Win + Divide and Rule BM?

That makes it even more fishy, mountains more that is...

Also the company who closed down the servers for still profitable games so they could claim the loss on their taxes (much like WB is doing with a ton of their content). It's a vaguely legal form of tax fraud (relies on overvaluing an asset then "losing it" on purpose) is deeply unethical, and is akin to breaking your own windows for insurance money.

[ToranIronfinder]

Now see, providing the TTRPG/D&D community with no alternative, a literal "our way or the high-way", doesn't seem terribly healthy.

Also!

That's not really answer to my question! So, once more unto the breach dear friends:

Please tell me why WotC having unilateral control to define what is offensive or hateful good for the health of the TTRPG community?

Again, as the OGL 1.0a essentially eliminated a number of competing systems, systems still active use it, non-DnD systems use it for lawsuit protection even though they use no WOTC content (and it would seem unless they drastically expand what is under the CC license they are leaving doors open for lawsuits on "similarity") any deauthorization by WOTC is fraught with concerns over non-WOTC IP.


Author A published under MnM's OGL, has his own nor themed with his own nor inspired setting. He technically is operating on a sublicense of WOTC's license. He is in trouble.

Worse author B creates a game using no WOTC content. After 10 years, he now has a problem, he can use OGL 1.2, and in so doing cedes a great deal of authority to the WOTC monopoly of TTRPGs. But if he doesn't, he has to worry that WOTC will construe that his system is too similar to theirs and they take legal action.

Any deauthorization of OGL 1.0a affects a lot more than WOTC's IP.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Again, as the OGL 1.0a essentially eliminated a number of competing systems, systems still active use it, non-DnD systems use it for lawsuit protection even though they use no WOTC content (and it would seem unless they drastically expand what is under the CC license they are leaving doors open for lawsuits on "similarity") any deauthorization by WOTC is fraught with concerns over non-WOTC IP.


Author A published under MnM's OGL, has his own nor themed with his own nor inspired setting. He technically is operating on a sublicense of WOTC's license. He is in trouble.

Worse author B creates a game using no WOTC content. After 10 years, he now has a problem, he can use OGL 1.2, and in so doing cedes a great deal of authority to the WOTC monopoly of TTRPGs. But if he doesn't, he has to worry that WOTC will construe that his system is too similar to theirs and they take legal action.

Any deauthorization of OGL 1.0a affects a lot more than WOTC's IP.

I fully agree with this.

Heck, Author A published under the OGL, used material from 3e's SRD (or even just referenced it). At this point, he can't publish anything anymore--he can't license under the 1.2 OGL because he doesn't use any Licensed Content (it's all 5e's SRD), so it's not covered at all. Therefore, he's out of business as to new material. That means that PF1e cannot (as it stands) publish any new material. It's force-killed. They can't even do updates to the online material--it's all frozen in time.

Not for nothing, but can you think of an instance where WoTC went after someone's use that you think should have been allowed? Don't forget, they don't need this clause to take action, all they're really doing is putting people on notice.

Trust is wholistic. I don't trust WotC at all anymore, at least as far as licensing decisions go. They don't have to lose my trust in each individual matter--they've lost my trust in total. By showing they're willing to put profits first. Draft or not, walked back or not, the fact that they actually sent the original draft outside of the company or even allowed it to get to that stage shows their true intent--they want to act as a monopoly and shut down any possible competition. Their talk about "protecting us from bad people" is a smokescreen, and a transparently transparent one. One without any history of being needed. So no, I'm going to interpret any elastic clauses as if they intend to use them tactically to shut down competition.

And furthermore, their actions in other realms of 5e have shown that their belief about what is "bad things" (in those terms) is so radically different (and radically much more expansive) than any definition I consider sane that even if they don't intend malice, their decisions will be bad from my point of view. Even if they're acting entirely in good faith (yeah right).

[Blackdrop]

This has been fun for me, but for mental health reasons, I'm done for the evening, but I wanted to leave one parting shot.

The concept that we don't know what will be considered in offensive in the future, so that some how justifies giving WotC general and complete control over offensive, quite frankly (and at risk of giving someone leverage to report me) incredibly dumb. Because while we don't know what will be considered "offensive" TOMORROW we absolutely know how the word "offensive" can twisted and abused TODAY.

Since this whole argument is coached in hypotheticals, here's another one:

Let's say a year from now the OGL 1.2 has been codified or whatever with no changes, there was, as Psyren chillingly put it, "no alternative." Let's also say someone prints a book under 1.2 called Transgenderism Through the Planes: A Guide to Incorporating and Understanding Transgender Characters. Now we have a company that has unilateral control to define what it likes as "offensive" . Everyone have the nightmare scenario I'm talking about in your head? Good. Now think: how many evil people actually need to be working in Hasbro/WotC's upper echelon's for that nightmare to become a reality.

Is that a probable scenario? Absolutely not, probably less than a 1% chance of it happening. I would not define it as impossible however. And that is not worth the risk giving WotC unilateral control with no oversight nor recourse to fight.

[Brookshw]

Trust is wholistic. I don't trust WotC at all anymore, at least as far as licensing decisions go. They don't have to lose my trust in each individual matter--they've lost my trust in total. By showing they're willing to put profits first. Draft or not, walked back or not, the fact that they actually sent the original draft outside of the company or even allowed it to get to that stage shows their true intent--they want to act as a monopoly and shut down any possible competition. Their talk about "protecting us from bad people" is a smokescreen, and a transparently transparent one. One without any history of being needed. So no, I'm going to interpret any elastic clauses as if they intend to use them tactically to shut down competition.

And furthermore, their actions in other realms of 5e have shown that their belief about what is "bad things" (in those terms) is so radically different (and radically much more expansive) than any definition I consider sane that even if they don't intend malice, their decisions will be bad from my point of view. Even if they're acting entirely in good faith (yeah right).

That's a "no" then.

[ToranIronfinder]

I'm biting my lip pretty hard while I write this and watch this thread for reasons I'm sure you recognize, my apologies if this answer is (intentionally) vague. The deauthorization clause of 1.2 eliminates the 1.0a license from further use other than through the safe harbor provisions provided in the updated OGL. If there's no such license other than as permitted through the safe harbor provisions, then the use of content that was dependent upon its existence would lose that tie in. The OGL 1.2 is a license, an offer for a contract, you do not need to accept it.

If a mod wanted to clarify what constitutes "legal advice" I'd be much appreciative, its hard not to discuss the details of these clauses without discussing what they mean.

To the discussion of 6(f), WoTC has repeatedly asserted that such protections are a core tenant of this change to the license; in every negotiation you get to a point where the other side simply won't budge, and you have to decide if you want to accept where you landed in that negotiation, or walk away. It seems that 6(f) is such a point. I get it that people may be unhappy, and may decide to walk away (and most certainly will scream into the void that is the internet), but expecting WoTC to clarify it seems futile (and leaving it vague isn't uncommon), at this point it seems that the clause is very much a "take it or leave it".

Well when it comes to using WOTC's system my option is leave it, and refuse to buy anything they publish, and try to convince others to do the same. A statement can be somewhat non-specific, but I think you would have to be crazy to publish under something that vague, it doesn't even make a point that something must be deliberate or intentional, which is a huge problem In my professional opinion (phiposophical semantics not law).

But, I'm wondering more about the derivatives from 3.x than 3.x itself, as I noted, WOTC's decision affects vast swathes of the ecosystem (which was my basis for our previous discussions on the other issue), and a lot of that ecosystem was changed because of WOTC's issuance of the OGL in the first place, I think it might have been a factor in a few studios shutting down.

I realize you won't answer, no worries, but I think that is a significant issue WOTC or someone had to address, or the courts likely will, unless they put a lot more in the CC than I am seeing.

[Pex]

One of my least favorite things that has come out of this is the overuse of the word "cynical". This is just how businesses works, believing otherwise is naivete.

Yes but that doesn't mean you have to like it or accept it. The key issue is WOTC wanting to get rid OGL 1.0A. Those who are angry about this must be vigilant not to let that happen just because WOTC walks back what they never cared about or expected to be accepted.

[Brookshw]

Well when it comes to using WOTC's system my option is leave it, and refuse to buy anything they publish, and try to convince others to do the same. A statement can be somewhat non-specific, but I think you would have to be crazy to publish under something that vague, it doesn't even make a point that something must be deliberate or intentional, which is a huge problem In my professional opinion (phiposophical semantics not law).

I completely understand and respect that.

But, I'm wondering more about the derivatives from 3.x than 3.x itself, as I noted, WOTC's decision affects vast swathes of the ecosystem (which was my basis for our previous discussions on the other issue), and a lot of that ecosystem was changed because of WOTC's issuance of the OGL in the first place, I think it might have been a factor in a few studios shutting down.

I realize you won't answer, no worries, but I think that is a significant issue WOTC or someone had to address, or the courts likely will, unless they put a lot more in the CC than I am seeing.

I feel a bit like we discussed this (or at least aspects of it) in the other thread. If you want, I'm happy to take it to PMs (though I'm probably going to be reviewing contracts for the rest of the night and doubt I'll be able to put together any semi-comprehensive reply for a bit).

[Snowbluff]

Oki doki, I'll make a note about 3rd ed based stuff for when I submit to the survey. PF1 hasn't been updated in over 3 years I think, but some of the smaller systems will probably appreciate.

[ToranIronfinder]

I completely understand and respect that.



I feel a bit like we discussed this (or at least aspects of it) in the other thread. If you want, I'm happy to take it to PMs (though I'm probably going to be reviewing contracts for the rest of the night and doubt I'll be able to put together any semi-comprehensive reply for a bit).

No worries, I'm no where near publishing, my thought is that a few ideas I'm working on for my kid right now right now might be something others are interested in, I don't want to close that door. But anything you PM I would read.

Bit I thinks it's something those on DBB should be forcing WOTC to address.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Oki doki, I'll make a note about 3rd ed based stuff for when I submit to the survey. PF1 hasn't been updated in over 3 years I think, but some of the smaller systems will probably appreciate.

I believe that a decent number of kickstarters for like adventure supplements tend to publish both a 5e and 3.5e version of the module (after all, it's only a matter of converting the monsters and such over)

Maintaining older edition support is something that for sure needs to be in new OGL if it is to be acceptable

[Oramac]

I do want them to define it. But up front, in clear terms they can be held to. Not as an amorphous "things we don't like" clause.

Agreed.

Language and culture change over time. Locking in a specific definition now is not helpful.

Locking in a definition is all but required. Look at the legislative process in lawmaking for any State. When they write a section of law, they define the terms used in that section. OGL1.2 is no different. If they want to write this section, they need to define it. Period.

The current version of that clause is identical in effect to "we reserve the right to cancel your license at any time for any reason without warning, and you have no recourse. But trust us, we'll only do it if we think you're writing Bad Things. No, we won't define those. And if we screw up...yeah, you're still SoL. But trust us." Which is not an acceptable license clause in any agreement, at least for me. There can be no meeting of the minds if I don't know what (at least with reasonable certainty) will trigger the end of the license. Which I can't, under those terms.

Again, agreed. (Phoenix, why are we not working together on content?)

And WotC has completely forfeited any trust anyone had in them as good stewards or judges of what is right or wrong. At least in my eyes.

Third, agreed. This entire OGL debacle has ensured that trust in WOTC is, at best, significantly reduced.

[Brookshw]

Locking in a definition is all but required. Look at the legislative process in lawmaking for any State. When they write a section of law, they define the terms used in that section. OGL1.2 is no different. If they want to write this section, they need to define it. Period.

Remind me, what's the Supreme Court's definition of Pornography?

[Oramac]

Remind me, what's the Supreme Court's definition of Pornography?

I mean, are you trying to get me banned for discussing law? I'll just say that even a cursory google search provides several answers within the purview of WOTC and the OGL.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I mean, are you trying to get me banned for discussing law? I'll just say that even a cursory google search provides several answers within the purview of WOTC and the OGL.

Yeah. I started to write up a response and then realized that doing so was way too close to the line. Suffice it to say "there are definitions more specific than that, and they're a high bar."

[Psyren]

Locking in a definition is all but required. Look at the legislative process in lawmaking for any State. When they write a section of law, they define the terms used in that section. OGL1.2 is no different. If they want to write this section, they need to define it. Period.

They don't. Period.

Look, one thing I'll potentially budge on is the "you agree not to sue" clause. I think you should be able to defend whatever you published as not being obscene/offensive/etc. It's not like they need that finger on the scales anyway given the arbitration clause later.

So to compare:



A crucial difference to me seems to be the 'general public would classify as' vs. 'We have the sole right to decide'.

For starters, Paizo DO have sole right to decide, per the second passage I quoted that you omitted; the first doesn't actually matter. If WotC had snuck a clause like that into 1.2 they'd never hear the end of it.

And second - "the general public would classify" might be more ambiguous, but actually pulling the trigger on a violation is still up to them. You then get to appeal. If general public is more to your liking though, I could be okay with WotC downgrading to that, provided it's been tested, which I'm sure they'll determine. Still, again, they made sure they're not actually beholden to the general public so it's moot.

As we've seen, public pressure and voting with your wallet are very effective means of making producers comply with the community's wishes. The community led the charge, and WoTC responded.

So why not trust the community to lead the way in the future?

It's a way to open the dialogue, but it doesn't mean the community gets everything, there's still give and take. There was considerable outcry against deauthorizing 1.0a and that's clearly still happening.

[Brookshw]

I mean, are you trying to get me banned for discussing law? I'll just say that even a cursory google search provides several answers within the purview of WOTC and the OGL.

If you've looked into it, then you know why any answer you could provide would support a lack of definition. Getting you to go look into why your argument isn't very convincing is the point.

If you want to go with what could be used for the OGL, then my counterpoint is that standard practices for morality clauses are NOT to define what triggers them, as supported by a cursory google for morality clause examples.