Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.

Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.

One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.

Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.

I might be wrong but I think Jhkim is talking directly about the license, the OGL and not the game mechanics.

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.

Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.

One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.

Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.

That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.

https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/

In part, because...

1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.

2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.

In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players

The entire point of this thread is that WotC is making moves to make such an effort impossible. If no one opposes their claims you'd not be able to duplicate any of 5e's classes or spells or many of their monsters in order to make such a clone possible.

AFAIK I'm searching for an existing license that might work as a substitute for the OGL, not a lawyer but so far the GNU FDL seems like the best option.

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/fdl-1.3.html

Ryan Dancey weighs in:

https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-deathorize-ogl.694196/

Quote from: Enworld

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deathorize OGL
Thread starter Morrus 

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one.

He responded as follows:

Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players

We need to remember that the only reason Pathfinder was a thing was because WotC totally screwed the pooch on releasing the 4e GSL in a timely manner.

If WotC was even halfway on the ball: Pazio would have absolutely been a 3rd party developer for 4e D&D.

The incentives for most 3pp to toe the line, and stay within the 'official' 5.5e ecosystem are huge.

The overwhelming majority will toe that line.

WotC fucked up a lot more things with 4e than just going to the GSL to create the conditions for it to be outsold by a clone.

People are extremely loyal to the D&D IP in RPG land. Nothing WotC is currently doing even remotely effects the majority of them.

This OGL kerfuffle is just not on that level.


Personally, I think that this is all wonderful, and I have a big bag of popcorn by my side ready for what WotC is going to do next...

Quote from: Jaeger on January 05, 2023, 02:23:25 PM

We need to remember that the only reason Pathfinder was a thing was because WotC totally screwed the pooch on releasing the 4e GSL in a timely manner.

If WotC was even halfway on the ball: Pazio would have absolutely been a 3rd party developer for 4e D&D.

The incentives for most 3pp to toe the line, and stay within the 'official' 5.5e ecosystem are huge.

The overwhelming majority will toe that line.

WotC fucked up a lot more things with 4e than just going to the GSL to create the conditions for it to be outsold by a clone.

   And Pathfinder had a lot of resources and advantages available to them--the subscriber lists, the track record on Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and the ability to pretty much republish the whole game minus a few Product Identity bits--that I'm not sure anyone does today. The Critical Role folks are probably the only ones I can think of who have the leverage to mount a successful challenge, and even that's a wild guess on my part--I'm far too detached from the 5E ecosystem to know the details.

With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.

So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:40:21 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:20:31 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 01:07:09 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 05, 2023, 01:03:36 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
For the cooperative minded, I'd be looking at creating a replacement for the OGL... like a Free System License (FSL) that perhaps removes/alters section 7 and adds "irrevocable" to the terms of the license and perhaps a separate OSR-based SRD that has been sufficiently rewritten/stripped of any WotC specific IP as to allow it to stand clear of Hasbro's hungry maw.

Again, not a lawyer, but I'd avoid copying verbatim any parts of the WotC OGL, since it is copyright by WotC.

One could use the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license instead. There have been a few games released under Creative Commons previously.

Eh, I wrote all my mechanics from scratch to be free and clear of the OGL, I'll pay a lawyer some $$ for a rewrite of the OGL1.0a with desired changes in original wording if that's what it takes to remain free and clear of them.

That's possible - but why not use Creative Commons instead? It seems like reinventing the wheel to write a new license from scratch that hasn't been tested in court. Incidentally, as a resource, one can look at the legal database of Creative Commons, which has a history of dozens of court cases and legal texts related to CC and other open licenses.

https://legaldb.creativecommons.org/

In part, because...

1) I need something that distinguishes content types. For example, you can't just release your whole RPG book as open content if you don't actually own all the content. I'm thinking specifically of artwork, which is often licensed from third parties and therefore unable to legally be offered as part of an Open License.

2) I also desire to retain a small amount of Product Identity for my own projects (specifically the proper names of specific NPCs and places in my setting). For the record, I don't care if you want to use the raw statblock for "Kalla Blackthorne" for some NPC named "Karina Desdemona" (or whatever) in your own derived product. I DO care if you put a character named Kalla Blackthorne in your work as a temple prostitute or release a module where every member of the Free Cities' of Old Praetoria Warden Council is a raging tranny pedophile.

In my admittedly not exhaustive searches through options I've yet to see a Creative Commons license that really addresses these issues.

Quote from: MeganovaStella on January 05, 2023, 01:36:41 PM
someone should make a dnd-clone rpg to draw in 5e players

The entire point of this thread is that WotC is making moves to make such an effort impossible. If no one opposes their claims you'd not be able to duplicate any of 5e's classes or spells or many of their monsters in order to make such a clone possible.

Rename, and Reword "Everything" in the original "5E Basic Rules".  Change "Every Word", slightly.  Release it under Creative Commons.  Allow others to state their compatibility to your new creation.  Then, continue to expand those Basic Rules, with periodic updates.  Perhaps you could call your new alternative ruleset, FWOTC the RPG?

Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.

So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?

  ACKS and Castles & Crusades are D&D derivatives whose creators have already committed to keep on going and fight this. Macris is already planning a new printing of ACKS and has said that he will, if necessary, de-OGLify it.

Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.

So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?

Sine nominee. It's compatible with all old stuff bjt was never under ogl. It covers sci-fi, fantasy and I think cyberpunk in the future.

And now it's coming out that for Kickstarters if you launch an OGL 1.1 product, you'll owe 20% of that to Wizards if you go over 750k.

https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252?t=CHpmF8ZYznF4T0W_xs7l-A&s=19

The head of Kickstarter pretty much acknowledges that this kills any profit for these projects.

Quote from: Monero on January 05, 2023, 02:54:16 PM
With WotC going full greedlord, I'm left wanting to find a new High Fantasy home.

So, what are the best Fantasy games that scratch a similar itch that d&d does but isn't reliant or associated with the OGL and is also not woke and supports their product?

Quixalted Extended. You play high fantasy heroes in a mythic world.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 05, 2023, 02:49:17 PM
  And Pathfinder had a lot of resources and advantages available to them--the subscriber lists, the track record on Dungeon & Dragon magazines, and the ability to pretty much republish the whole game minus a few Product Identity bits--that I'm not sure anyone does today. The Critical Role folks are probably the only ones I can think of who have the leverage to mount a successful challenge, and even that's a wild guess on my part--I'm far too detached from the 5E ecosystem to know the details.

Yup...

Personally, I think that a 5e clone would have to come out of one of the bigger OSR publishers. But you are looking at a much longer process to do what Baizuo did in just a few years.

And it would be a big risk...


A lot of this is assuming WotC will get really aggressive about shutting down everything not 1.1 OGL compliant.

Once they lock down the big 3pp players, they may not care about anyone not in the 1.1 DnDone ecosystem.

In my opinion; a lot of what WotC will do going forward will revolve around the success of the OneVTT, as that will be their primary vehicle for monetizing the 5.5e player base.

I believe that the effects of the OneVTT ecosystem on the hobby will have a far greater effect on whether or not the conditions are created for a 5e clone to gain significant traction in the hobby.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 05:19:35 AM
So, yeah.

Hasbro plans to go to court to revoke the OGL1.0a (it is no longer "authorized" and while the old license was perpetual it was not "irrevocable") and demand everyone operating under it (even it it's not derived from their material) must update to OGL1.1 which, in turn, grants THEM a perpetual irrevocable royalty free license to use anything you created as they wish.

I'll also note that, as worded, it doesn't matter if your work was derived from WotC's SRDs or not, just the use of the OGL1.0 or 1.0a is enough for them to capture your content in their 1.1 regulatory net if their play to de-"authorize" the prior versions stands.

I'll say it now. Crowdfunded Class Action suit against WotC to clarify provision 9 is going to be needed, perhaps even preemptively, because they are planning on coming for anything and everything ever made under any version of the OGL to claim it as perpetually irrevocably and royalty-free theirs.

You will own nothing and be happy (or else).

You know, I can remember everyone, including me, laughing when Kevin Siembieda quashed D20 conversions and refused to do OGL for Rifts because his IP lawyer advised him it could taint his product and allow WotC (or others) to claim the rights to his stuff.

If WotC wins on this, and they might on the "I can afford more lawyers than you" clause, he'll be proven right.

Quote from: S'mon on January 05, 2023, 08:25:48 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 05, 2023, 06:07:47 AM
Cavet; I am not a lawyer, but I did go look up terms and apparently legally "perpetual" without "irrevocable" just means "until the licensor terminates the license" vs. "this license is good for a set term."

It can be taken to mean either 'never ending' or 'indefinite' depending on the context - one brief discussion at https://www.keystonelaw.com/keynotes/termination-of-intellectual-property-licences-are-you-at-risk

I think in this context a judge would most likely rule the obvious apparent intent was not to make the licence revocable at WoTC's option.

Maybe. Their own FAQ seems to indicate otherwise. It indicates an intent to match GPL.

Again, the real victory will be who can spend the most on lawyers (which includes judge shopping), not the law.