Wizards of the Coast Trying to Retroactively Cancel OGL 1.0a
enworld.org
enworld.org
Aside from the confusing “perpetual” !== “irrevocable” language, how would it be legal to suddenly start taking cuts of existing businesses? If WotC were to attempt this, would it be legal? It sounds like it would be based on the explanation of being able to revoke an existing license. But that sounds like a giant legal loophole to me.
[1] https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-ga...
> 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.
And 1.1's rumored revocation of that authorization. And no matter how clear in common sense it might be that Hasbro shouldn't be able to do that, I don't think we're going to find out exactly how that falls apart until it's ruled upon in a court.
In reality obviously not. Whenever things like these happen it's interpreted in a way that the big company wins. For you not saying irrevocable doesn't mean it's revocable, but the opposite holds.
Companies that got burnt on this now require you to give up rights to any contributions you wish to make before merging (or just not use any of code not written by their employees).
The currently top-rated answer states:
A non-exclusive copyright license (such as most FOSS licenses) can be revoked at any time only if there was no consideration involved. The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeal took this on in Jacobsen v. Katzer[1] in 2008 and ruled that there is consideration exchanged in the use of FOSS by a licensee. This indicates that an FOSS license that's silent on revocation is likely revocable only for violation of it's conditions.
But the answer may vary in other jurisdictions. Love to hear a lawyer chime in.
EDIT: In the UK and EU it's also likely irrevocable once you've relied on it, eg. via principle of estoppel. The second voted answer mentions an interesting talk[2] by a panel of lawyers/experts and this starts to be discussed around the 8m 30s mark.
-----
[1] https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=177761825741712...
[2] https://archive.fosdem.org/2018/schedule/event/licenses_and_...
This on the face of it seems needlessly confusing as well. Perpetual seems to just mean "may be revoked at any time". So why use the term at all instead of just talking in terms of revocation?
E.g. "irrevocable until 1 Jan 2025 except for situations listed in section 5" or "may be revoked at any time".
Let’s say I decide that I want to publish a DnD adventure.
Even with OGL I can’t say it is for DnD. They say I can’t even say it is compatible with DnD, but I have my doubts about that.
I describe a unique set and setting. Not using any Wizards of the Coast trademark in it. (Which honestly I don’t want because I want my thing to feel fresh and unique.) I don’t think the OGL licence would help me with that.
Then of course there is game mechanics. I don’t want to repeat the players handbook. (You wouldn’t expect this kind of material to repeat the basic rules anyway.) But i do want to use terms from it. For example I would write: “The 3rd chest in the second level is locked and magically trapped. The DC of the trap is 13. On activativation it deals 1d6 poison damage. Inside the chest a Shimmering Ghillie Suit. The suit is a legendary magical item which grants its wearer advantage on stealth checks.” Obviously this uses a lot of DnD terminology. (DC, advantage, poison damage, stealth check, legendary item) But it does not infringe on the copyright on any WotC property. (Assuming that I have made a search for the Ghillie Suit not appearing in any published materials yet.) Do i need OGL to publish this?
If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish?
Or at least that’s my understanding with all I’ve learned today ;) Mechanics are fine, "Creative" things like classes not.
> If not who on earth needs OGL to publish anything they would want to publish?
IIRC the video game Solasta: Crown of the Magister is D&D5e under OGL, so they used a lot of SRD things.
> Turn-Based Tactical RPG based on the SRD 5.1 Ruleset
It is generally a wise idea to not anger the druids anyway. :)
> IIRC the video game Solasta
Oh yeah. I did not think about video games. Makes sense.
Fear keeps the local publishers in line. Wizards of the Coast is basically the only big player in the industry, backed by an even larger corporation.
"Third party publishers" are usually hobbyists or single-person operations, who really benefit not having to work under the threat of lawsuits or even C&Ds.
And the RPG industry does have a history of that: TSR, the originators of D&D, were rather litigious, resulting early game companies like Judges Guild having to really conceal their NPC stats to not use verbiage from AD&D.
Later TSR sued Mayfair for their Role Aids line (IIRC, Mayfair was helmed by one of the chief people now responsible at WotC). And then there was Palladium, makers of quasi-D&D and the ultimate kitchen sink setting Rifts, who really didn't like early online presence.
Never mind that your most likely "publishing house" drivethrurpg.com has WotC as a big partner.
Technically legal is one thing, having a license that's shared by thousands of other people who would be on your side out of poor necessity seems like a better foundation for your small game company.
https://magicuntapped.com/index.php/articles/item/501-filing...
Plus there is little reason to pick a fight -- Paradox is an online publisher and has it's own slew of IPs. Not a fight worth picking, and one that might be expensive, esp. against an established player in a different market and country.
What Paizo would or could do now is a different matter. They might say that PF 2E is distinct enough, especially if some 2.5E thing would remove some remaining verbiage or direct lifts from old OGL material. They might also just do a deal with WotC. Gates and Jobs at Tanagra.
Dumbest decision I've seen Paizo make since the last one.
In retrospect if that was their goal, it would have made sense to use a different copyleft license for the open content that did not include a clause that paints Wizards as the body to update the license, especially given the mechanics of using PF 1E content in 2E requires subjective decision making compared to the relatively automatic 3.5 -> PF1E or PF1E -> SF compatibility.
1. simplify things for 3rd party publishers. rather than worry about multiple licenses, just publish under the same one as pathfinder 1e, 3.5e, and 5e, that they already know like the back of their hand
2. save costs. writing a new license is expensive. it apparently would have delayed release of the pf2e system and significantly increased the cost
3. cover their ass just in case WotC thinks pf2e is still too similar to d&d
there’s really no way they could have foreseen a rugpull like this. everyone thought the OGL was ironclad until yesterday. hindsight is 20/20 though.
Could they?
This almost looks like a poison pill to me. If WotC was forward thinking enough, back in the 3.0 days they used the OGL to trick competitors into a trap.
As time has gone on the main competitor to 4e is now Pathfinder... thus taking the oxygen out of the room and leaving less space for non-OGL competition.
Now Paizo has enough of a real business built on Pathfinder, but not the endless war chest of Hasbro. It seems to me like they would probably need to cave and make a deal with Hasbro rather than try to carry on some kind of fight that puts their livelihoods on the line.
And as a player I can be dismayed with what Hasbro is doing, but knowing that Pathfinder is at risk now I have no reason to switch to them. But there's no obvious alternative to 5e and Pathfinder that has any real traction...
I don't think moving from a license which Wizards is trying to rely on ambiguity to claim it allows them to pull the plug to a license which definitively allows them to pull the plug is a business safe move. Especially since the new license requires you to accept the end of OGL v1.0a so there's no way back if you do sign.
Add to that that Wizards has pulled the plug on them before, _twice_, first by kicking them out of their official adventure publishing role, then pulling the plug on their position as an online retailer of first party 3E PDFs, and there can't be much trust for Wizards from Paizo.
Paizo could have made this decision before (without the one way nature, even), and chose not to in the 3E to 4E days. Charting their own path instead took them from the a small adventure path publisher to the #2 publisher in tabletop games, so it worked out for them, so I don't see why Paizo would choose to deal with Wizards here.
Finally, I'm not sure tabletop publishing is that high margin a business. I'm not sure Paizo could afford 25% of their revenue, or even if they got a sweetheart deal like 10% on account of their size. Plus the aforementioned trust issues regarding keeping that split long term would still be there
I think OGL came from a realization that this sort of thing wasn't good.
What it was created to do, and what Hasbro is leveraging it to do, are two different things. The same thing happened with 4E/the GSL, which everyone's forgotten but was essentially the beta run at Hasbro trying to invalidate the OGL.
The thing is, Hasbro doesn't even need to invalidate the OGL. They recaptured so much of the market with 5E and the OGL-agnostic, IP-friendly Dungeon Master's Guild that they could just stop publishing and supporting OGL-compatible products altogether. As long as One D&D doesn't botch things as badly as 4E, I don't think the current market would care.
It might sell the most right now but if this truly is WotC slicing off their own nose to spite their face with overly aggressive legal tactics to extract money and control the market for D&D related goods, and as a consequence the community turn away from them… there’s a huge sea of available options that are completely unrelated to D&D, Champions, Rifts, Genesys, Feng Shui, Fate, Numenera, the plethora of hand that are Powered by the Apocalypse… there’s not just a sea but entire oceans of RPGs out there that don’t descend from D&D in any way and most of them are just plain better RPGs! If the community leaves D&D behind they will find so many better games to play that honestly… I’m starting to hope WotC are about to accidentally cripple the D&D brand. It might just be the best possible thing for the RPG industry and the player community as well.
The OGL is a sort of "you're definitely safe under these restrictions" promise. If you comply with it, the promise is that you definitely won't be sued. Of course, that promise is now being broken.
You are absolutely right about this being more of a promise not to sue, more than anything else.
The OGL says, here, crib from and directly reference this copyrighted text so you can eliminate broad swaths of reinventing the wheel and focus on your compatible content. Third-party publishers on shoestrings adopted it en masse for both litigation safety and convenience.
I understand setting an adventure in Faerun would be a derivative work, but surely it wouldn't if it's in a completely new setting? And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation, but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual, as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM.
The fact that something competes is not enough; I can write a novel with wizards and dragons, and as long as I don't include characters or places from Tolkien or Harry Potter, it's not derivative, no matter how many themes and ideas are similar.
Referring to classes and spells from the Player's Handbook shouldn't be a problem, because the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to everything from the Harry Potter book.
Am interesting aspect with publishing an adventure is of course that WotC also publishes adventures for D&D, but my adventure would not be derivative of those adventures; it exists entirely independent from them. It does not exist independently from the core rules (PHB, DMF and MM), but it doesn't compete with those.
If that would still count as a copyright violation, then the Harry Potter Encyclopedia would also be a copyright violation the moment Rowling publishes her own encyclopedia. I think that would be rather weird. Shouldn't a violation be a violation of a specific work, rather than the context around it?
Anyone can write a setting book. A setting book that references specific copyrighted text — like the contents of the SRD, including classes, spells, creatures, magic items, and certain non-mechanical terms — runs into OGL space.
If you create an entirely new set of terms and mechanics, you haven't created a derivative work, but you also haven't necessarily created a compatible work, and you certainly haven't created one as directly compatible as a potential competitor's OGL-compliant work.
If you aren't writing for distribution, then none of this matters anyway.
> And repeating stat blocks from the Monster Manual is clearly a violation
With the exception of some copyrighted monster names, it's explicitly not a violation under the OGL, and the ability to do so is a large part of the point of the OGL.
> but it seems to me I should be able to refer to the Monster Manual
You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas.
> as well as include my own custom stats for original creatures not from the Monster Manual, or even stats that I need to be different from those in the MM.
If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL, go for it. The broader point of the OGL was not having to reinvent those wheels in every product a publisher created.
I understand that this is what they want you to believe. I don’t understand how it would be trademark or copyright infringement saying “go buy those people’s book and look up information there”.
> If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description
But source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
It's a violation of the OGL. So you can opt out of the OGL (and opt out of reprinting verbatim rules), try it, sell it, and see what happens:
> Use of Product Identity: You agree not to Use any Product Identity, including as an indication as to compatibility, except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.
...
> The following items are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content: Dungeons & Dragons, D&D, Player’s Handbook, Dungeon Master, Monster Manual, ...
This is why so many OGL works contain phrases like "core rule books of the 5th edition of the world's most popular pen and paper RPG" instead of "Monster Manual p. 132".
> Source books don’t do that. They say “so and so, neutral good, ac: 12” It is expected from the DM reading them that they already know what this kind of shorthand mean.
You're right, those are too generic of examples. Here are some real-world ones I've had to deal with as an OGL author:
- What are the mechanical ramifications of a sentient magic item with the Crusader special purpose that's engaging in a Conflict with its wielder?
- A creature has Burrow. Can they burrow through stone?
- "Eldritch Blast". Is it PI because of "Eldritch"? Is it OGL because one version of the SRD named it but omitted its mechanics?
- How do you sustain the spell effect of a Crown of Madness? Is that OGL because one version of the SRD omitted that paragraph?
- A dwarf has Dwarven Combat Training. What kind of hammer can they throw?
- Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits? If it's two, but your DMs' copy of the source text has three, which benefit was removed via errata? Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata?
What you reference isn't always a detail you can assume the DM (sorry, GM) has available. The official SRD also isn't entirely OGL, and the contents of the SRD don't always match the text of their source works.
So when something you add to your setting, or to a creature or item, relies on the details an OGL/SRD wrinkle, do you play it safe and stick to what's covered by the OGL? Find something else? Ditch the OGL, rewrite all of the complicated interactions from scratch, and wind up creating a new game?
If you're a third-party publisher making three figures and paying freelancers by the word, do you tell the writer, "Sure, go ahead and rewrite all of the related rules from scratch", or do you tell them to stick to what's most clearly covered by the OGL?
Idk. Do you want it to burrow through stone? Write that down. Do you not want it to burrow through stone? Write that down. Do you not have an opinion? Leave it to the DM.
I’m not even following what you are saying. You are saying that you choose to publish under OGL because then it is defined how burrowing works? Or what is exactly that you are saying?
> Does the Grappler feat grant two or three benefits?
What? The Grappler feat is in the basic rules. How does this come up in your own published material? If some NPC of your making has it you just say “has the grapler feat” and then people can look it up what that means.
> Do you assume your players/DMs even have the errata?
Why do you care? How often did you received feedback like this: “We were playing the adventure published by trynewideas. The setting was trully breath taking, and the maps gorgeous. The fun quirks of the NPCs made combat very memorable. My players lowed it. That is until it all came crashing down because the grappling feat of the gladiators in the amphiteatre were slightly ambigous. Ruined the whole module for us. Sad.”
But that's ridiculous, right? Anyone can refer to a page in a book. If the OGL takes that away, then what's even the point of it? Well, I guess being able to make derivative works, but what if I don't want to do that? What if I want to make my own campaign world that's merely meant to be compatible with the D&D rules? The same way anyone can make a game that runs on Windows without needing a license?
WotC's entire reasoning that you can't do that, sounds to me like a far too restrictive interpretation of copyright law. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, WotC's interpretation has never been tested in court.
I'm talking about copyright, not OGL.
> You can't by name without a separate compatibility license, typically by way of publishing to the Dungeon Master's Guild, which is laden with a lot of other intellectual ownership gotchas.
Says who? WotC doesn't decide the law. They can claim it's illegal, just like Apple can claim it's illegal to jailbreak an iPhone, but that doesn't make it law.
Just like the Harry Potter Encyclopedia can refer to Harry Potter characters without a license, an adventure should be able to refer to entries in the PHB or Monster Manual, as long as it doesn't directly copy significant amounts of text.
> If you can describe what "neutral good" or an "Armor Class" represents mechanically without resorting to a literal mechanical description in the SRD or covered by the OGL
My point is that I don't want to and don't have to. It's already described in another book that I expect people to own.
It's not that simple. The main thing to remember is that even a threat of an expensive lawsuit is a pretty credible one in the US, because of how the system is set up.
Yes, frivolous suits get thrown out pretty fast, but that's still not cheap (because you need to hire an attorney to communicate with the court on your behalf, because, again, the system is set up that way), and when it comes to copyright very few things are that clear cut.
Just with a mod for a game it's easy to argue that without the game there's no mod, so the mod is a derivative work.
And if your campaign is bolted to the mechanics, then it's not hard to argue that the campaign is basically genre-bending fanfiction (ie. copies the same themes into a new setting), so one might argue it should get the same legal treatment as a derivative work.
Even if it's ~90% that you would win the case, it might cost you a lot, that's why this matters to businesses. (It likely doesn't matter to individuals or small clubs that publish things for free.)
EDIT: I realize people might not know what an SRD is. It's basically the bare-bones document explaining the game and its mechanics with all the IP-encumbered names filed off. D&D 5E has an SRD (copy: https://www.5esrd.com/) which 3PPs use when making their own content for the system.
This letter was sent to Wizards of the Coast yesterday, asking for clarification on the situation within 10 days.
The biggest effect from all of this that I can see is that everyone I know that's normally super enthusiastic about creating Dungeons & Dragons content (including myself!) is now deflated, not knowing what they should do about their upcoming projects (that they may have sunk thousands in already).
- Wizards of the Coast announced on December 21, 2022 that a new version of the Open Gaming License (OGL) would be released, causing confusion in the gaming community.
- The letter writer, who represents Sad Fishe Games and Prudence Holdings, has tried to contact Wizards of the Coast through various channels to seek clarification, but has not received a response.
- There are rumors that the new 1.1 version of the OGL will restrict the use of the 1.0a version and require contributors to share financial data and potentially pay a royalty to Wizards of the Coast for the use of OGL content.
- The letter writer argues that the 1.0a version of the OGL cannot be revoked and that Wizards of the Coast does not have the authority to terminate the license or force contributors to use the 1.1 version.
- The letter writer cites previous statements made by Wizards of the Coast and case law to support this interpretation.
- The letter writer requests that Wizards of the Coast provide a more definite statement on the 1.1 version of the OGL and deauthorize any attempt to repudiate the 1.0a version.
ChatGPT is probably even better than those random Reddit news article summaries that were all the rage for a while.
ChatGPT doesn't care about getting it right or wrong, and won't get rewarded / penalized for it.
- that the legal action to be taken against WotC would be focused around building a coalition for a "class action" injunction against WotC based on their "apparent intention to breach the 1.0a Open Gaming License".
- "22-23 years of conduct on the part of WotC which ratifies the important section",
- provided a very narrow alley for a semi-face-saving "out" to WotC in the form of "perhaps this was all a big misunderstanding".
- overall tone was very "we will 100% absolutely demolish you in court but would rather you just come to your senses".
- threatened legal subpoenas depositions with all that entails, namely the implications implicit in depositions that resulting information would either: cause great embarrassment to WotC or potentially open up perjury/etc charges against individuals if they obscured embarrassing testimony.
If I was posting a ChatGPT summary I would have used the ChatGPT output as a starting point and edited these points into it, and blending my style with OpenGPT's style. That's what I'd like others to do as well if they insist on using ChatGPT so much.
Would you mind explaining why you don't want to go into another person's Google Drive? Just Google tracking?
And, since it's Google Drive, I don't want to deal with having to open the link in a private browser. For the person saying "isn't it easy just to open it in a private browser?" sure; but it's also friction I don't feel like dealing with, especially since it could easily be a PDF or whatever and my concerns remain.
It is arbitrary, and it really is nothing more than a letter. But it sets expectations on what consequences may arise if they choose not to respond. It is now up to Wizard of the Coast to decide whether and how to respond.
* forces the issue, and demands action from WoTC; fairly common
* keeps the issue front and center, ensures it is visible for the rest of the community, which means they can act accordingly (instead of it quietly happening behind the scenes, followed by targeted Cease and Desists, settlements, etc.)
* only requires a response; Hasboro might be able to buy time, offer an olive branch, etc.
- Gamers
- Gamers: Dorkness Rising
- Gamers: Hand of Fate(??? I didn't see this one, I think that's the title?)
If they're self-publishing, well, it's a pity everyone forgot what happened with 4E and the GSL.
For this reason I think the Gizmodo link does not deserve traffic.
Essentially you are allowed to use the rules of DnD (and other games that use the license) to make derivative work as long as its also published with OGL.
It allows homebrewed content to exist and is part of the reason the DnD community is so big.
WoTC (Wizards of the Coast, the owner of DnD) is “updating” the license from 1.0 to 1.1 and is using the update as an excuse to clamp down on competition and limit what can be used.
This has a far reaching effect because 1.0 would be revoked which means lots of content that has already been created would be put in a grey area, WoTC could sue anyone who made content for ownership even if it was made with the previous license.
It also puts entire games like Pathfinder into question as these are essentially modded DnD.
Unless I misunderstand, according to the submitted thread this isn't the case.
>The good news is that, because of the reliance principle, third party creators who have already created a work under the OGL likely could continue to sell that work even if the OGL were revoked. They just could not create any new works.
Although that "likely" gives doubts.
> WoTC could sue anyone
isn't contradicted at all by that opinion.
My understanding (relatively naive, though I am a long time consumre of D&D products) is that Hasbro has been making some questionable decisions recently particularly regarding their golden goose, which is Magic the Gathering. Some of those decisions have really annoyed the fan base, e.g. the Black Orchid debacle (they replublished a bunch of cards that they promised would never be republished, at hugely inflated prices).
In an attempt to shore up their share price and profits, they've reviewed their other product lines to see if there's any slack that can take up the load: which puts D&D in play. The bean counters believe that Hasbro is leaving a lot of money on the table; It's very popular and has had something of a resurgance recently due to popular media like Stranger Things and Critical Role, along with the well received 5th edition.
Ignoring direct IP licencing (e.g. games/movies/etc.), the majority of the revenue is from Games/Dungeon masters (as I understand it, in line with my experience), and not the players. DMs buy the books and run the game. DMs are a fraction of their player base, and there's certainly many who depend on free/open products to save costs. The powers that be believe that some of that can be monetised more effectively and they're trying to think of ways to extract more money from more people.
D&D 5e does fill an important niche; it's the public face of table-top role-play gaming, and it's pretty easy for anyone to pick up and run/play, however it's not the only product on the market and there are many products that serve the customers better (even if they're less accessible and require an understanding of the genre to choose) - Hasbro/WotC have to make this work, and quickly, or they run the risk of losing everything.
Paizo (via Pathfinder) probably has the most to win here; it's well known in the community and has much better support for people who prefer a "crunchy" game. Paizo are probably kicking themselves for not removing their dependency on the OGL when they released Pathfinder 2e (which is what my group plays most frequently).
3.5 was an update released for balance reasons, as I understand it and didn't change core gameplay - it removed some of the more broken exploits, but you can use 3.0 material with 3.5 with relatively few, if any changes: most of the balance problem was player side.
I used to play basic D&D as a child, and then sort of ignored the whole genre until around 2005 when I picked it back up again, using 3.5, so I'm not an expert on it by any means.
In this case, it refers to a large part of the Dungeons & Dragons system, normally kept in books you have to pay for. Wizards of the Coast, who down the D&D IP, decided to "open source" most of the system and a lot of monsters as a way to drive 3rd party engagement. Remove any licensing restrictions, have at it nerds, build a community.
Hasboro has since acquired Wizards (years ago, actually), and has decided to reign in the licensing. Several other games / game systems / publishers are using these open source rules, and it threatens to alter or extinguish that community.
But seriously, if this goes wrong, if it's agreed that OGL 3rd and 5th Edition derivatives can continue under OGL1.0 in perpetuity, Wizards of the Coast and Hasbro stand to lose control of AD&D. They have already have lost significant mindshare to Pathfinder (a 3rd Ed fork), but this could be the final nail.
There's more than enough money in keeping OGL1 to fight this. This is a stupid fight for WotC to have picked. Any goodwill they had will be actively invested into other rulesets.
This will make fan content nye impossible to publish.
The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing.
Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3?
Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.
> Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3?
No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
ETA: The position of the FSF/SFC is that the GPLv2 is also irrevocable: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...
> Parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance
Which, at least to me as a layperson, does indeed sound like it’s describing "irrevocable" with more words.
Even if current recepients can still use it, new recepients are blocked. And it is unclear if a current recepient can create new derivatives or nor.
If Alice grants Bob lib v1.0 under GPL v2. Bob creates Soft1 v1.0 under GPL v2 using lib v1.0. Alice then revokes the licence on lib v1.0. Bob can still distribute Soft1 v1.0 but can Bob create Soft 1 v2.0 or Soft2 using lib v1.0? Or is he considered a new recepient of lib with each derivative he creates? Can Charlie still get lib v1.0 under GPL v2 from Bob?
If the last answer is yes then there is no issue with the current situation either.
It would mean you can still get the SDR from anyone who already has the SDR under OGL 1.0 even if directly from WOTC you can only get it under the new license.
Are we stuck until all his contribs are rewritten. Aren't all contribs to Linux so intertwined as to be derivatives of each other.
Which Git commit is a derivative and which isn't?
No he cant, he's NOT the owner of 99.9% of the linux kernel code, he is "just" the owner of the trademark "linux" and some code.
The Linux-Kernel-Code could just change license if every single contributor (or company) gives the "thump-up", otherwise that code would need to be rewritten.
That's a good thing btw ;)
Past discussion on claims the GPLv2 is revocable because it doesn't explicitly say irrevocable
which was added when a bunch of GPLv2 contributors mused about revoking their contributions to Linux rather than comply with the project's new code of conduct: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...
> The contributor is, of course, free to make no future grants, but they can’t withdraw past grants. The Guide's new section also explains how promissory estoppel is an additional legal safeguard ensuring the withdrawal of permission will not disrupt the use of those who rely on the software.
https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizard...
I believe, at the time the OGL v1.0 was written, the intention of irrevocablility was there.
>A: 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.
If it goes to court I bet this quote will be mentioned. They cannot say this and then in small print do the opposite after people have relied on it for two decades.
That it does not require periodic refreshing. Compare to getting hired and being hired until you are fired vs you can have a fixed duration contract which you would have to explicitly extend otherwise it automatically ends.
Or think about an "immortal" who doesn't age but can still be killed.
I still think this is weaseling.
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 section 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 termination 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 years 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
---
I will note the different lawyer angling for a publisher lawsuit linked in the Google drive elsewhere makes many of these arguments.
This is more or less what Hasbro tried to do with 4E's GSL,[1] which is why nobody used it.
1: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games...
It also looks like a lawyer advertising his services. And I'm not sure I trust this lawyer any more than I trust Hasbro.
How so? They are just clarifying that it’s not legal advice, something that would suddenly come with a ton of regulation (and would even be illegal in some jurisdictions).
If you made something based on the license while it was in effect, you are perpetually covered.
Once they revoke the license, you can no longer make new work.
That's how I read it anyway
The Apache license does have the word irrevocable. But BSD, MIT, EPL and others do not. Does that mean that if the copyright holder for lib v1.0 decides to change the licence for lib v1.0 (not subsequent versions) to something restrictive then everything using it gets frozen in time and nothing new can be made?
Same as with Oracle vs Google, other than a bunch of court room sophists, nobody really gained anything.
I.e. a temporary license will expire by default, but a perpetual one will not.
This is not legal advice but rather my personal understanding of the matter which may or may not be factually correct.
Trust some more work went into the gpl if that is true.
WOTC only has the ability to change the license of IP they own, even retroactively. However, works based on WOTC IP which were legal under the OGLv1.0 may no longer be legal under the new terms, putting them in a legal gray area (they may be illegal to distribute, or they may still be legal to distribute but only because they were legal at the time they were created).
Creating new works based on the old IP that would have been legal under the OGLv1.0 would almost certainly not be legal if WOTC changes the license, though.
This one clearly shows the ambiguous definition:
https://thelawdictionary.org/perpetual
> Never ceasing; continuous ; enduring; lasting; unlimited in respect of time; continuing without intermission or interval.
But that the authors of GPL v3 wanted to close this gotcha loophole that you and the forum lawyer calls attention to, doesn't mean the gotcha loophole would have worked. Nor that it's going to work, or even will continue working even if it's worked before.
Courts aren't computers just executing legal code - for good and bad.
There is little case law about software re-licensing at least, so yeah, it's hard to say.
There is plenty of case law that says the opposite. For instance Cohen v. Paramount Picture shows that copyright licenses are not unilaterally revocable even if the original license doesn't explicitly state it is irrevocable.
A license is an enforceable contract. Revocation requires the consent of both parties, if no exception is provided for originally. Eisenberg, The Revocation of Offers covers many of the nuances of when a contract or even an offer is no longer revocable.
That is, if it's not explicitly mentioned, which one applies?
The fact that there is no "we have a new version" clause listed in the termination section would likely go against wizards but they are likely to claim deauthorization is different to termination.
I guess this explains why the Terms of Service for some sites that host user generated content state that as a user you grant the company a perpetual, irrevocable license to use your content. Makes sense, thank you.
That said, this is an open license rather than a regular two-sided contract, which makes a lot of things about it untested in courts and there are some pretty good legal arguments for considering it irrevocable flying around (just like in case of GPLv2, for example).
I don't actually know anyone still playing any version of D&D at this point. Everyone I know is either Pathfinder, OSR or some other indie RPG (MORK BORG seems popular right now).
Which is ironic because I know it would be a challenge to even get to a first session with them in such a system. Instead I play Knave with them.
I don't think it's actually Stranger Things driving 5th ed popularity, though. If it was, surely they'd go for something more retro. I think it's the big tabletop RPG streamers.
But these people don't know anything about TTRPGs in general, they use Google and the SEO directs them into the sales funnel of 5e.
EDIT: The other big channel in is watching Critical Role streams. And if that is your only reference with their particular ads it will draw you into the current, and large, ecosystem of 5e.
Or the time they clamped down on fan animations in Warhammer settings. [2]
Or their lawsuit against Chapterhouse. [3]
[1] https://gizmodo.com/games-workshop-is-still-claiming-to-own-...
[2] https://www.pcgamer.com/games-workshop-is-trying-to-shut-dow...
[3] https://www.reddit.com/r/HobbyDrama/comments/cqao2l/miniatur...
There was a lot of drama but no creator was ever asked to stop producing fan-content. What did happen was some creators got bullied by the fanbase though. [1]
Some of those creators got full-time jobs and others were asked to stop monetising the content. I'm not sure why either of those are problems.
No one has to stop doing what they're doing and some folks get to work officially for an IP they're passionate about.
As far as the Space Marine book thing, sure, that was dumb but hardly a big deal and the Chapterhouse lawsuit was a decade ago. GW has changed significantly and noticeably since.
[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/Warhammer40k/comments/onl8vf/a_stat...
under threat of litigation.
Even playing online it's a nice chance to do something social with fellow English-speakers and away from my family responsibilities. As a system, I'm not hugely wedded to 5e. I'm actually doing a deep-dive worldbuilding with Traveller: The New Era (early 90's sci-fi).
[1] https://mobile.twitter.com/jasonschreier/status/161040530756...
This is something that has been tried in the past, IIRC, when a project with a single contributor has attracted a commercial buyer that wants to take the product closed-source.
In the case I so vaguely remember (video software of some sort?), they tried to say that not only would future releases be closed, but that all previous GPL versions were now revoked, and continued use was copyright violation. From what I can remember, the community response was basically "LOL no".
So no, they are not analogous at all.
In legal matters, no one should be sure shit like that matters, unless they're paid to be sure of it.
Note that apparently some lawyers believe even the GPLv3 could in fact be retroactively revoked by the copyright holders, as long as the copies were given away for free, despite the explicit language to the contrary.
Doesn't mean much to me unless I know who's paying them to believe / worry about that.
> Eugene Volokh, a law professor at UCLA, said that Mattel might be able to argue that the GPL is invalid because users don't pay for the free software.
> "Nonexclusive licenses given for free are generally revocable, even if they purport to be irrevocable," Volokh said. "Even if the GPL license in cphack is treated as signed and is covered by 205(e), it might still be revocable by Mattel as the new owners of the cphack copyright."
> "It is unfortunately not quite as solid a case for the good guys as the GNU license theory would have at first led us to believe," he said.
The article itself was an interesting case, where Mattel acquired the rights to a program they wanted to stop the distribution of (cphack), which apparently had been released under the GPL, and successfully sued to stop anyone from distributing it anymore. However, whether those that created it in the first place had had the right to distribute it was in doubt, so it's probably not a good test of the GPL itself.
[0] https://www.wired.com/2000/03/mattel-ruling-confuses-hackers...
None of them would go for it. I tried and tried to get them to understand that there wasn't anything special about the WotC cards, I said "You know there are no real wizards at Wizards of the Coast, right?" These are "magic" cards, not magic cards, eh? But they wouldn't have it.
I gotta hand it to these folks. They convinced a generation that you have to pay them to use your own imagination. Maybe they are real wizards?
But this does not “cancel” existing licenses. Instead, what it does is create a hard fork, between 1.1 content and 1.0 content.
Basically… any content released under the 1.1 license is not usable under the 1.0 license.
The statement, in the new license, that the old license is “no longer an authorized license agreement” does not apply to existing licenses anyone may have to 1.0 content. Absent your consent to the 1.1 license, its terms don’t apply to you.
Instead, that language is meant to defeat the forward compatibility clauses in the 1.0 license. Absent that language you could freely use 1.1 content under the 1.0 terms because of the forward compatibility language in 1.0.
This means you can continue to “Use” (as defined in the 1.0 license) any of the content you were using before.
However, it also means if you “Use” any 1.1 licensed content, then either you are in violation of the 1.0 license (and then thus have no rights) or you are subject to the 1.1 license and its terms.
So, this does create some hazard, in that any one using 1.0 content under a 1.0 license needs to ensure they don’t in the future use any 1.1 content.
But if you stick to 1.0 licensed content you are ok.
This can still cause problems. If you are in the business of selling DnD compatible game content, you now suddenly have to make a choice between loosing forward compatibility and having control over your revenue.
It still sucks.
But any content you could sell yesterday you can still sell tomorrow.
The contract has explicit, custom, definitions for several basic elements of contract law. It explicitly declares what consideration exists and what offer and acceptance look like.
The party defining those terms is Wotc. They are bound by something called “promissory estoppel” from representing that those things weren’t present in the original 1.0 license. They cannot revoke your 1.0 license unless you breach the agreement.
They can set a trap for you, that will capture 25% of your revenue, if you end up incorporating 1.1 content into your previously 1.0 derived works.
So, be careful. But they can’t take away what you have now.
It can still also hurt various businesses to loose forward compatibility rights… but anything derived from purely 1.0 content is still 1.0 licensed and they can’t take that away unless you violate the 1.0 license terms somehow.
That said, I think PF will still have to reword quite a few spells, and possibly rename more than a few creatures and spells as well. Probably enough for a 2.5e, but I also wouldn't be surprised if they're working on it especially after this leak dropped.
I grew up playing Dungeons and Dragons - I don’t want to play Oubliettes and Wyverns or whatever.
No matter how annoying. It they make a bad move they could mess it up. It is them who take the risk after all.
D&D does indeed predate me, but there's nothing stopping me from inhabiting their world.
I don't think they understand the extent to which moves like this harm their fanbase. Paying fans! They will soon find out.
What I am certain of is is that the D&D phenomenon will outlive WotC. It's a movement, an ethos, and gross mismanagement will not kill it.
while community driven projects _could_ live, it would be under constant legal threat, which prevents it from growing independently of WotC. Esp. if there's an aspect of commercialization in there. This means that any project would seek first to cooperate with WotC, which means they get a control, and may be commercial benefit.
And there is no legal threat to 95% of homebrew, never will be. Why? Because I just do what I want with their IP (Wotc) and it never reaches further than my players. Most people do not publish to the world, they present to their players. Very few folks make an official doc, get it printed, add their own mechanics, build a world atlas etc.
It will stop things like the "wheel of time" (books not tv) adaption, the reasonably widely available dark sun fan made version, "one night strahd" etc.
Now that is a shame. But. 50% + of it was drek. And half of what was good rode rough-shod over other folks ideas, vision and IP and made money for the writers for it. If you are re-doing elric's world in 5th ed, you owe a bit to Michael Moorcock (which is ironic as he dis-owns it as pulp and beneath him), and owe a bit to wizards-o-t-c because you are probably re-skinning their hard work.
What is more disappointing is that Wotc is actively trying to model their monetization of DnD in the future on mobile gaming and free-to-play computer games.. I kid you not. Luckily there are basic, adnd 1st ed, 2nd, 3rd, 3.5 and 5th ed to choose form for cool playable systems, and that's if you want to stick to "original" dnd. So 6th ed, with whatever horrible monetization they formulate may well just rot in it's own lonely purgatory with it's older brother 4th edition. (which, to be fair has a couple of cool things but overall was a failure, IMO)
*edited, spelling
But yeah your point is valid.
Thankfully the game has so far successfully rolled all its Bad Management Saving Throws.
Not based on time, based on their value to the culture.
> Beholder, Gauth, Carrion Crawler, Displacer Beast, Githyanki, Githzerai, Kuo-toa, Mind Flayer, Slaad, Umber Hulk, Yuan-ti, Tanar'ri, and Baatezu.
From https://writing.stackexchange.com/questions/41942/is-there-a...
(although it's a bit more complex than this, I think?)
Gives a bit of a boost to the ranger class.
I prefer worlds that are not intrinsically intertwined with any specific ruleset. And for general fantasy I will always come back to Middle-earth. :)