Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

wtf you talkin about, i'm selling apples for 35 bucks each, each purchase comes with a free copy of my houserules...now whut booger snot? slap leather or kick ricks ya sidewalk sissy...

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on January 06, 2023, 01:22:25 PM
The license cannot be revoked because it never made provisions that it could be revoked. It says it is granted in perpetuity, i.e. until the original copyright expires. Hasbro will not be able to win in court. Not that it matters because all they really need to do is waste their opponent's money until they're forced to concede out-of-court. Pretty much everyone even tangentially involved in the hobby agrees on this, even across political lines. It's absolutely evil behavior to demand the digital book burning of countless books released over the last two decades, but that's to be expected from corpos.

I'm not a lawyer and don't even play one on TV, so this is not legal advice.

But I watched an interview with a lawyer who said that precedent is that (a) perpetual licenses can indeed be revoked if that's not specifically spelled out but (b) this is only if the license is gratuitous — that it's a free gift and the licensor isn't getting anything out of it. And WOTC's statements when the SRD was released spelled out exactly what they're getting out of it: 3PPs using the OGL drive business their way.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I am and I certainly hope others are.

Here is an interesting post on the subject at ITCHIO:

Although the post comes with the caveat, "I'm not a lawyer..." I believe his explanation is quite accurate. There is also a very interesting comment by 'Cone of Negative Energy' that points out the negative aspect of using the OGL... you are contractually agreeing to abide by terms that would otherwise not be covered under various aspects of intellectual property (IP) law.

https://itch.io/t/420581/publishing-with-the-ogl-and-you

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.

If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.

I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.

In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)

Quote from: estar on January 06, 2023, 09:42:00 AM

Quote from: Jaeger on December 27, 2022, 01:49:30 PM
WotC has started to play those games a little bit, and make no mistake: very few will be able to stand against them if they decide to go the they sue regularly route.

It is a different economy with the Internet and crowdfunding as a part of it. I think deep pockets don't count as much given the circumstances. Or more specifically the hobby as a whole will be able to match the resources Wizards has to bear.

It all rests on how offensive Wizards actions will be in the near future. Right now given the scope of the worst-case scenario, it will pretty much guarantee Wizards will be hit by a lot of angry hornets driven by passion.

The hobby as a whole is not rising up against Wizards over the OGL, that's just silly.

It is highly likely that the 1.1 OGL is for an opt-in walled-garden like tenkar has alluded to:



This version of the 1.1 OGL will only be a failure for WotC if the big 3pp plyers fail to sign on to 1.1. And WotC will be doing custom deals for a lot of them.

If the big 3pp players say they are bouncing - then we can say they flubbed the 1.1 OGL.

If they do sign on - then it is a WotC win. (In the short term)

Nobody knows anything yet.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.

If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.

I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.

In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)

Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.

Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:

https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/

The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.

IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.

You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.

If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.

I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.

In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)

Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.

Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:

https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/

The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.

IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.

You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.

You'll also need to rewrite all the spells' fluff text from scratch (and not using quite the same names unless the effect is self-evident; i.e. fireball is fine, you might wanna change "magic missile" to "force darts" or something) , along with the fluff for all the classes (along with slightly different tables or switching to a formula for level-based elements) and races (and probably without the halfling) and feats if you're wanting to duplicate 3e/5e. Renaming some of the core attributes/terms (ex. Palladium uses Armor Rating instead of Armor Class) isn't a bad idea either.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 06:40:59 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.

If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.

I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.

In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)

Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.

Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:

https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/

The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.

IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.

You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.

You'll also need to rewrite all the spells' fluff text from scratch (and not using quite the same names unless the effect is self-evident; i.e. fireball is fine, you might wanna change "magic missile" to "force darts" or something) , along with the fluff for all the classes (along with slightly different tables or switching to a formula for level-based elements) and races (and probably without the halfling) and feats if you're wanting to duplicate 3e/5e. Renaming some of the core attributes/terms (ex. Palladium uses Armor Rating instead of Armor Class) isn't a bad idea either.

Which makes it a VERY big task, something one person might not be able to do alone in a short period of time. But I'm willing to cooperate/contribute to such an effort.

IIRC Dark Dungeons was put on the public domain by it's author.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 05:43:41 PM

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:23:11 PM

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 06, 2023, 01:40:50 PM
Whether WotC decides to go ahead with their attempts to 'de-authorize' the OGL 1.0a or not, I strongly suspect that everyone relying on it is going to start looking at alternatives very soon now.

I know the OGL 1.0 cannot 'legally' be changed by Hasbro/WotC. But that does not mean they cannot try, and in the process cause a lot of agita for those who have relied upon it in the past. I think that for most OSR projects there is no need to use the OGL. Game rules cannot be protected, only the actual words and images (copyright), trademarks and tradenames, and occasionally patents for really unique processes and game items.

If you avoid using the word for word descriptions as allowed under the OGL 1.0 but which may identify the work as covered by the OGL, images, trademarks and tradenames associated with anything from WotC, and possible process 'tech' like the use of the d20 (although I think that is really stretching it) and the 'Character Creation' process which WotC claim as proprietary, I really don't think there is any reason to use the OGL unless you just like the idea of notifying them that you are a target to be bullied and harassed.

I think in the future I am going to remove the OGL, convert 1d20 rolls to 2d10s, make sure not to use the Character Creation process as claimed by WotC as proprietary, and go through with a fine tooth comb and remove any references that may be identical or similar to the OGL 1.*/SRD 3.*.

In fact, perhaps we should join together and try to come up with a bullet proof OSR set of rules that provides the feel of, but is completely removed from the OGL 1.0? I think Microlite may be an ideal place to start that process... remove what little there is of the SRD 3.5, rename it, and give credit to the author of Microlite20 and varieties, but that is it. (As I think about it, giving credit to sources of 'inspiration' is a dangerous bit of courtesy that may come back to bite you -- if you are not violating IP law and you are not including the OGL in your document making such polite comments may just open you up for abuse and harassment.)

Yes, but Microlite IS derived from the SRD and IIRC it does include the OGL.

Furthermore neither TSR nor WotC invented the polyhedral dice or their use in games:

https://bombardgames.com/the-history-of-polyhedral-dice-in-board-games/

The math can't be protected either, so as long as you don't copy THEIR expression of the rules you're golden.

IMHO we need a CC By or maybe CC By SA SRD, WITHOUT ANY of WotC's IP. Which means all the mythological creatures are okay as long as we write unique descriptions.

You'll find that you can't use their creations: Beholders, etc, but that's fine, if a GM WANTS to he can buy or find a free source to houserule them in his game.

Those were exactly my thoughts. How to create a real open source system, like Microlite20, but without the OGL. I agree that the CC is the way to go.

Quote from: squirewaldo on January 06, 2023, 02:19:20 PM
Here is an interesting post on the subject at ITCHIO:

Although the post comes with the caveat, "I'm not a lawyer..." I believe his explanation is quite accurate. There is also a very interesting comment by 'Cone of Negative Energy' that points out the negative aspect of using the OGL... you are contractually agreeing to abide by terms that would otherwise not be covered under various aspects of intellectual property (IP) law.

https://itch.io/t/420581/publishing-with-the-ogl-and-you

I also am not a lawyer, but I do not believe that the linked summary is accurate. It claims,

QuoteHowever, when you make stuff for use with D&D, you have to follow the OGL or the Open Game License. This is a document that comes with a lot of D&D products these days that specifies exactly what is "Open Content" and what you're allowed to do with it.

However, prior to the OGL, there were companies that published supplements for use with D&D - like modules by Mayfair and others without a prior agreement. This is in keeping with general trademark law, that one can make devices or add-ons that work with another company's as long as the trademark is clear that it is third party. This has been tested by makers of games compatible with another company's gaming console, for example.

It's also true that several companies that published games substantially similar to D&D, like "The Complete Warlock". The full extent of how copyright applies to game mechanics isn't tested, but the OGL isn't necessary for such works.

imagine a world where wotc logic on the ogl is valid and applies to software...

Quote from: Slipshot762 on January 07, 2023, 07:30:16 AM
imagine a world where wotc logic on the ogl is valid and applies to software...

It's why the Electronic Frontier Fundation MIGHT be interestedon helping fight them if needed.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 06:45:25 PM


Which makes it a VERY big task, something one person might not be able to do alone in a short period of time. But I'm willing to cooperate/contribute to such an effort.

IIRC Dark Dungeons was put on the public domain by it's author.

I was thinking the same thing. I cannot do this alone (with thoughts of Frodo...). Worse yet I was thinking about something that might really be a proprietary protected intellectual property: the Hit Dice Formula. I can do without the Character Creation system; I didn't like their system anyway and never used it. I can do without the d20; 2d10s not only are reasonable replacements but create a statistical curve which some may like. But the Hit Dice Formula is something I don't even know where to begin replacing.