I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Yes, I agree.
1. They cannot legally retract OGL 1.0 and the material they released under it.
2. They have demonstrated they are bad actors, untrustworthy, and incapable of stepping back.

Hopefully they sue Paizo for use of the OGL 1.0 in future material and are crushed in court, freeing everyone up to continue using it. I expect they are not that stupid though, and will stick with the Fear Uncertainty Doubt strategy to intimidate 3PPs.

I will note that their statement https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest with the strong emphasis on the vital need to stop the bad people via the morality clause was cleverly done, and has won over much of the Woke end of the commenting public. This attempt to turn the D&D 'community' against itself seems to have been the plan from the beginning, from that PBS article attacking the OSR, but up until now had been remarkably unsuccessful.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

By now, Wily E. Coyote is smarter than WotC. I wouldn't be surprised if they bet the farm on de-authorizing the OGL 1.0a by signing some other contract elsewhere or such, and now they are trapped by this situation.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 02:47:49 AM
I think the draft OGL v1.2 should probably get its own thread, to distinguish from previous rumors. For those who haven't seen it yet, here's the announcement:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest

And here's the direct link to the draft document:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

The key thing for me is that it still de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, even though they say that all previously published OGL v1.0a stuff is still valid. I consider that still to be an unethical breach of promise, since they had previously said the OGL v1.0a would be permanent in their own FAQ. It screws over all the other companies who have used the OGL for unrelated system sharing.

That for me is the core.

Also, it allows them to release OGL 1.3 de-authorizing OGL 1.2, so once they have that precedent in place, they can do whatever they want.

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

Exactly right. Further, this deauthorization sets the precedent and pattern for how future deauthorizations will be handled.

Of particular note is that "published" has a very specific definition in copyright law. It refers specifically to a set distribution of copies of the work. So a first printing is one "publishing" of the work. A second printing is a distinct "publishing" of the work.

So "previously published" in the deauthorization notice is NOT "you can keep selling as many copies of your already created OGL1.0a book as you'd like."

Rather, it's "you don't have to burn already printed copies and can sell them until your stock runs out, but anything printed or distributed after the effective date of our new license must use that new license or be in violation."

Note too that the 30 day notice of change requirement for WotC is gone. Because that window will instead be the difference between when you receive the latest deauthorization notice and the effective date of the new license.

And all your "previously published/printed/distributed" are still valid under the irrevocable license, but any additional copies have to be modified to match the NEW license anyway.

Basically they went from straight forward Intimatation check to a Deception check; relying on the differences in definition between common use and legal terms to make their efforts seem slightly less sinister.

They also announced how they were going to generously give the community the core mechanics under a creative commons license.

Newsflash - the stuff that they are making "open" doesn't require a license and never did.  All this does is lock down the SRD. If you accept OGL 1.2, you're stuck praying they don't alter the deal further when OGL 1.3 "deauthorizes" OGL 1.2.

Fuck them. I said it at the beginning of this debacle. I'll say it again. Burn it all down. Let "D&D" sit mouldering on a shelf.

I will never trust Hasbro again. They are bad faith actors. I no longer trust any of their promises or their threats, as they can change anything on a dime. They are now on my boycott list, and I will be boycotting all 3PP products using Hasbro's new closed license. People online said that they would initially go "scorched earth", and then dial some of it back.....as a deceptive "negotiation" tactic, to get what they want. And that's exactly what they did.

I'm done with them.

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

I'd need to read further, but I think they have addressed this. From the OGL v1.2,

Quote2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.

Quote7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.

So they are agreeing not to use that trap any more.

However, there are traps elsewhere in the document - like the hateful content clause (6.f), and termination if they are sued (7.b.i).

Utter Non-Starter:

Quote
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.

WOTC can yank your license just because they can. They determine what is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing.   That includes people who say opposite opinions on Social Media.   This is the same model that Patreon does where WOTC can terminate your license because you said Wrong Bad Things on the internet.

Any gaming license with a Morality Clause is shit and should be kicked to the curb.

Quote from: jhkim on January 20, 2023, 10:28:09 AM

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

I'd need to read further, but I think they have addressed this. From the OGL v1.2,

Quote2. LICENSE. In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content or Our Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.

Quote7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION
(a) Modification. We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision.

So they are agreeing not to use that trap any more.

However, there are traps elsewhere in the document - like the hateful content clause (6.f), and termination if they are sued (7.b.i).

"We can only modify THIS license in xyz ways" is worthless when they can simply declare it no longer "authorized" except for previously published/printed/distributed material and the precedent has already been set by accepting the de-authorization of 1.0a.

The license can be absolutely irrevocable, but once it's deauthorized that irrevocability applies only to the printed copies you have sitting in a warehouse. If you're PoD or distributing digitally those all have to cease on the effective date that OGL1.3 goes into effect.

The irrevocable clause and limitations on modification only matter if the ability to deauthorize the license is fought and defeated.

Similarly, irrevocable is worthless it only applies while the license is in effect for you and when WotC can terminate it for what amounts to "someone somewhere has said they were offended by something you said at sometime somewhere."

I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 20, 2023, 11:40:04 AM
I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

I think just absolutely ignoring it while continuing the course of de-SRDing their material has a similar effect... as in "your efforts aren't even worth a further thought."

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 20, 2023, 11:45:40 AM

Quote from: 3catcircus on January 20, 2023, 11:40:04 AM
I would hope that at least one of the "big" 3pp respond to this with nothing more than "go fuck yourselves."

I think just absolutely ignoring it while continuing the course of de-SRDing their material has a similar effect... as in "your efforts aren't even worth a further thought."

Concur. *How* WotC is told to get bent is less important than that they *are* told.

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

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

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

So if a 3rd party used the OGL, and didn't use any WOTC open Product Identity from the SRD but released some of their own content as open Product Identity under their contribution to the SRD from a product, WOTC is claiming (I think) they can cancel that.

And that is even more upsetting to me. That company relied on WOTC saying it was irrevocable to conduct business in a manner where they were releasing their own unique IP into a shared reference document for other 3rd parties to use it and grow that first 3rd party's system, and WOTC thinks they can stop that by revoking their authorization.

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

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

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

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

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

So if a 3rd party used the OGL, and didn't use any WOTC open Product Identity from the SRD but released some of their own content as open Product Identity under their contribution to the SRD from a product, WOTC is claiming (I think) they can cancel that.

And that is even more upsetting to me. That company relied on WOTC saying it was irrevocable to conduct business in a manner where they were releasing their own unique IP into a shared reference document for other 3rd parties to use it and grow that first 3rd party's system, and WOTC thinks they can stop that by revoking their authorization.

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

It does seem absurd, especially if those others didn't use any material from the d20 SRD. They used the OGL verbatim because they thought it was more efficient than inventing their own license that did the same thing. They thought it was basically a CC-esque license that lasted for as long as the copyright, bolstered by the official FAQ from the time that confirmed so.

WotC created an unnecessary legal and bureaucratic headache for people who never used their IP in the first place, like Chaosium. Chaosium at least had the good sense to define their product identity in advance, even if I feel like they're overreaching and shooting themselves in the foot by saying "no, 3pp cannot reference sanity mechanics or any of these other mechanics that we haven't used for decades even though pure game mechanics aren't protected by copyright anyway."