If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.

They could also reach to the EFF for help fighthing this since if WotC gets it's way it would impact Open Source Software.

But I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:35:58 PM
But I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.

And because the left loves censorship they probably approve even if it kills them.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:35:58 PMBut I bet Baizuo will cut a sweet deal with WotC and leave everybody else to hang.

Eh I think unless the WOTC deal is: 'No fees on anything you do, and 100% security for realzies', I don't think Paizo will take, and I don't think WoTC would offer that. That might actually be very smart of WotC if they did (getting the potentially biggest opposition onto their side), but I don't see Hasbro as willing to make smart moves like that.

Anything worse than in the single-digit percentage, and anything less than 100% security would at best be a slow death.

Doing a livestream about the OGL thing right now so click over. (It'll be archived, so you can view it anytime.)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pk1aA1UNJE

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 07, 2023, 12:36:44 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 11:44:55 PM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 06, 2023, 09:53:16 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:09:57 PM
Basically sounds like nothing short of a crowdfunded class action of all the large and small players would really have the monetary resources to counter (barring some very dedicated pro bono angels... but even they would have expenses probably in the hundreds of thousands if they were lucky).

Plan B is crowdsource an alternate SRD that touches nothing of WotC's versions directly with everything reworded from scratch (use the same procedures as reverse engineers use), a completely original setting and accept some additional notable differences (different names for widely known spells, attributes, classes, etc.... I'd never touch halflings as a playable race for example... sucks, but they're too D&D specific for me to feel safe using them) to make it not worth Hasbro's efforts in the same way that they'd never, in a sane world, be able to touch anything from Palladium Books.

Or some of us get together, make the SRD AND then launch a crowdfunding campaign to publish it.

To be fair, I already have a non-OGL system ready to go ... [cut to avoid repeating text wall] There will be a "Free Systems License" for it (I want people to make and sell adventures and their own supplements for it), but none of the Creative Commons ones are quite the right fit so I'm going to need a custom one drafted.*

That's fair, I'm also working on some stuff, but I'll try and work on the other thing too. Mechanics are safe, it's the IP that's the problem.

I think I've got a workaround on my license issue. I'll just cut and paste the text of my material, less any material I wish to keep as product identity, into a separate document and release that under a Creative Commons open license. Not sure if I should put that out significantly ahead of my actual books, but if anyone wants to jump ship for a non-OGL rules document that's at least got some "in play feel" similarity to D&D, then having it out there if WotC drops the bomb (or shortly thereafter) might give some other smaller publishers like I'm hoping to become an option to retool towards where most of the work has already been done.

Sounds like the 13th is going to be the day of Reckoning so I'll probably hold off on a release until at least then, but I'll be getting the document ready just in case.

What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PMWhat advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

This is my next question, too. And how easy is it to split a book into bits of public domain and copyright?

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.

Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."

If that's too much to ask then I shouldn't be releasing it at all.

As an alternative view to Alexander Macris comment (amacris) the folks over in the open source land has been grappling with the kind of stuff Wizards trying to pull for decades.

For folks who are interested here is an analysis of GPL version 2 which unlike version 3 doesn't contain the term irrevocable.  Since the one of the sources for the OGL was the current GPLv2 it may be relevant.

https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4

I recommend looking at section 7.4.1 which among other things talks about the sublicensing clauses that the OGL has as well.

More specifically, the part on the downstream license grant

Quotethe recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions." (GPLv2§6). So in this step, the contributor has granted a license to the downstream, on the condition that the downstream complies with the license terms.

That license granted to downstream is irrevocable, again provided that the downstream user complies with the license terms: "[P]arties 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" (GPLv2§4).

Thus, anyone downstream of the contributor (which is anyone using the contributor's code), has an irrevocable license from the contributor. A contributor may claim to revoke their grant, and subsequently sue for copyright infringement, but a court would likely find the revocation was ineffective and the downstream user had a valid license defense to a claim of infringement.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 07:31:27 PM

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

Creative Commons license means you have to actually say you used my work as part of your own when making your own products off it.

Basically, I did a lot of work and I'm offering to give it away with a perpetual irrevocable royalty-free license. The least you can do is include a line of text on your credits page saying "includes material produced by Christopher D. Johnson of Siege Engine Games under terms of the Creative Commons License."

Yup. That's CC Attribution ("CC-BY"). You could also choose to release under CC-BY-SA which is "Share Alike", meaning that whoever uses your work also has to release under CC-BY-SA and share their material with the world.

A potential problem with CC is releasing a mix of non-open and open content in the same work. It's easy if you fully own everything. But if someone uses your "Share Alike" work and then closes off a bunch of their stuff, it could be seen as violating the intent of the "Share Alike" clause.

The WotC OGL is different from Creative Commons in that it explicitly encourages a mix of closed and open material. And the closed stuff is even more closed than usual - because by using "Product Identity" someone would be not just violating copyright, they'd be violating the terms of the license. Most of the open-source licenses don't have this, because it can extremely hinder open source development.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 11:38:50 AM
If I was Paizo (because they are the biggest competitor) I'd hire Ryan Dancey (because he was involved in the creation of the original OGL) with the job of provoking Wizards to backing off or testing their new interpretation of the OGL. I know Paizo isn't the behemoth they once were but Dancey might take the job for cheap on principle. They might also get crowdfunding/GoFundme from other publishers if WotC tries to drag things out so as to win by having deeper pockets.

That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Plus, there's the added factor that the text of the OGL itself is not Open Gaming Content. So including the text of the OGL is a clear violation of WotC's copyright and if you can't reproduce the OGL text, you can't satisfy the conditions of the OGL.

You might be able argue that the OGL was authorized when you first published it, but this won't help anyone who publishes OGL content post release of 1.1. And even this doesn't help with the case that reprinting the OGL text is a copyright violation as WotC can just announce that this is no longer allowed (and you'd have a hard time arguing against this as it says right there in the OGL text that all rights are reserved).

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Because of Section 13

Quote13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

• The OGL has an explicit termination clause. Deauthorization is just another way of terminating the license
• The second sentence stands on it's own. Which means all licenses for the works based off of the original work still exist.

The older version of the GPL and other open licenses has variants of this clause. Designed to prevent the situation that is now happening.

Quote from: hedgehobbit on January 07, 2023, 09:30:26 PM
That seems like a waste of money to me as I don't see how Hasbro can lose this case. The defense will have to prove to the court that the version of the OGL they were using was authorized when the lawyer for WotC, who owns the copyright of the document, is right there saying that it isn't.

Which is why any lawsuit stemming from this also needs to challenge Hasbro/WotC's interpretation of the term "authorized" as it appears in Clause #9 of the OGL 1.0a. As one of the original authors, Ryan Dancey's testimony would be invaluable.

QuotePlus, there's the added factor that the text of the OGL itself is not Open Gaming Content. So including the text of the OGL is a clear violation of WotC's copyright and if you can't reproduce the OGL text, you can't satisfy the conditions of the OGL.

The OGL is copyright to prevent anyone from simply using it for themselves without any intention of being part of the wider licensure. It's not "Open Content" because if it was, it would be subject to modification (as per the license) by anyone using it. It's also exempt from the usual protections of copyright law because the text itself says the entire license must be reproduced verbatim when used. Basically, WotC's copyright is only there to ensure that THEY ALONE reserve the right to modify the terms.

QuoteYou might be able argue that the OGL was authorized when you first published it, but this won't help anyone who publishes OGL content post release of 1.1. And even this doesn't help with the case that reprinting the OGL text is a copyright violation as WotC can just announce that this is no longer allowed (and you'd have a hard time arguing against this as it says right there in the OGL text that all rights are reserved).

As I mentioned, the text of the OGL waives many of the standard protections of copyright by citing that it must be reproduced as a condition of the license. The only time those protections may be enforced is if the text is reproduced absent a lisensure (but even then Fair Use for educational or commentary purposes may still apply). Wizards reserves the rights because only they can modify the terms.

It'd be like if you gave a cop consent to search your car or house. You can't then try to sue them for a 4th Amendment rights violation, since you already waived that right when you gave consent. You might claim you consented under-duress, but then you have to prove the cop pressured you under color-of-law. But simply being ignorant of your rights is not a defense.

Quote from: Ruprecht on January 07, 2023, 06:43:25 PM
What advantage does Creative Commons have versus just having an SRD without art and declaring it Public Domain?

For who?

CC By guarantees the author people using his stuff will give him credit.
CC By SA adds the guarantee that downstream is also kept open and with a notice of it being open.

Public Domain IS open, but here's the thing, lets say someone finds an obscure piece of work and incorporates it on his own, only those who know the original would have the knowledge that it was incorporated, plus we have fuckers keeping ppl from using lots of stuff from HPL, ERB and others even after their works have entered public domain.

So, a license that is EXPLICIT about it being open is a good idea IMHO.