Quote from: Fergurg on January 12, 2023, 01:10:50 PM
They could do that, or worse - they could cut your license by claiming wrongthink on your part, meaning you can't make it anymore and they can AND you have no recourse.

Well, you'll still own your content, meaning you can just use it again somewhere else. But, yeah, the fact that WotC would have a permanent, irrevocable license to it means they functionally own it too. And they can pump it full of wokeness, potentially damaging your own brand. That last part may potentially be actionable, though, and may cause a court to order WotC to relinquish all rights to your content. It'll be a long, drawn-out battle for sure, but could be one of the few ways out of the shitty deal.

Of course, if someone were stupid enough to sign on in the first place, maybe they deserve what they get.

Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:

X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.

That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.

Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.

Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.

As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.

What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.

UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.

Text of the ostensible leak below.

Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 12, 2023, 12:35:54 PM
Insider leak claims WOTC execs think we're a bunch of cows fit only for milking. Subscription cancellations are being monitored right now with the ambience in the office that they might have fucked up.

Lesson to take away from all this: never let anyone named Williams anywhere near D&D.

Hi,
I'm an employee at WotC currently working on D&D Beyond (DDB) and with D&D
business leaders on the health of the product line. If you want I can provide proof of
this.

I'm sending this message because I fear for the health of a community I love, and I
know what the leaders at WOTC are looking at:

- They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.
- Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom
line.
- Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the
quickest financial data they currently have.
- They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push
this through.

I have decided to reach out because at my time in WotC I have never once heard
management refer to customers in a positive manner, their communication gives me
the impression they see customers as obstacles between them and their money, the
DDB team was first told to prepare to support the new OGL changes and online
portal when they got back from the holidays, and leadership doesn't take any
responsibility for the pain and stress they cause others. Leadership's first
communication to the rank and file on the OGL was 30 minutes on 1/11/23, This was
the first time they even tried to communicate their intentions about the GL to
employees, and even in this meeting they blamed the community for over-reacting.

I will repeat, the main thing this leadership is looking at is DDB subscription
cancellations.

Hope your day goes well,
[name redacted]
P.S. I will be copying and pasting this message to other community leaders.

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.

UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!

BTW, thanks Daddy Warpig. Just heard about this, and it has been independently confirmed this person is a WoTC employee.

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 03:18:56 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 02:41:26 PM
UPDATE! Looks like WoTC is going to make a statement on Twitch at 3pm EST.

UPDATE! Twitch-stream is CANCELLED. LOL!

BTW, thanks Daddy Warpig. Just heard about this, and it has been independently confirmed this person is a WoTC employee.

Absolute Clownshoes at WOTC

Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:

X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.

That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.

Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.

Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.

As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.

What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.

But there was no clause for WotC to outright cancel your licence for whatever "reason", there also wasn't anything about THEIR licence granting them perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, sub-licenseable, royalty free rights to your shit.

Why do you keep simping for the megacorp? Aren't you a "progressive"?

Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

I've got 1.0a open in another window and I'm not seeing anything in it granting Wizards access to your work.  Unless I'm somehow getting eye-glaze from the legalese and overlooking it.

Quote from: GeekyBugle on January 12, 2023, 03:23:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM

Quote from: Effete on January 12, 2023, 01:00:40 PM

Quote from: Omega on January 12, 2023, 12:15:38 PM

Quote from: blackstone on January 12, 2023, 07:21:08 AM
BIG RED FLAG:

X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can't and won't cancel products out of fear that they'd be
seen as "similar to" Licensed Works. Therefore:
A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is
substantially similar to a Licensed Work.

That is a standard clause many game publishers drop into their Terms of Submission. That or a "You submit it. We own it." clause.

Its been around a long time too as I started noticing it around 2008.

Clause X.A. is not the the problem. Clause X.B. is the one that's concerning. Giving WotC unmitigated access to use or sub-license EVERYTHING you write, forever, without compensation is unusual. The combination of the two expounds things. It means WotC can just clone your material, and through marketing, outsell you with your content.

As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.

What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.

But there was no clause for WotC to outright cancel your licence for whatever "reason", there also wasn't anything about THEIR licence granting them perpetual, worldwide, irrevocable, sub-licenseable, royalty free rights to your shit.

Why do you keep simping for the megacorp? Aren't you a "progressive"?

You probably need to reread what was said. Or double-check your definition of simping. There was nothing complementary being said.

Quote from: Valatar on January 12, 2023, 03:30:14 PM

Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

I've got 1.0a open in another window and I'm not seeing anything in it granting Wizards access to your work.  Unless I'm somehow getting eye-glaze from the legalese and overlooking it.

Re-reading the text of v1.0a, I agree that the language isn't clear, but it is the basis on which *any* Open Game Content - including the SRD - is used. The v1.0a is viral. It talks about "contributors" and "users" - rather than speaking about WotC and licensees.

The open content of any work published using the OGL v1.0a is fair game for other people to copy. By using the license and indicating your open content, that means your own open content can be used by anyone else - including WotC. If this wasn't true, then no one could use the SRD itself.

I earlier thought WotC never used this in commercial publications - but a poster pointed out they did it in the Monster Manual II for 3E and one other book. They reprinted the Razor Boar and Scorpion Folk from White Wolf's Creature Collection (see pages 220 and 221 of MMII). You can look up that book for exactly how it was done. In a sidebar on page 220, they say:

QuoteOver the long term we hope to use more and more material created by the independent pool of d20 System designers and publishers, just as they are using the Open Content material created by Wizards of the Coast. Instead of reinventing the wheel, we're all able to partake of the shared design resources that operate under the Open Gaming License.

As we continue to add Open Game Content to the pool of available material via the System Reference Document, we hope to help the d20 System evolve and constantly become more fun to play, easier to work with, and the centerpiece of a rewarding hobby. It is our pleasure to share those objectives with all the other publishers who have joined us in this great Open Gaming adventure.

EDITED TO ADD: I'm not quoting this to say that I believe it. The point is that they used other people's content, and had plans to use more. It turns out they didn't, but I'm sure that was from strategic reasons.

WoTC cancels announcement - https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-ogl-announcement-wizards-of-the-coast-1849981365?fbclid=IwAR2hp2OgRG27aNkdn72O9o8p6HN9GVBFXp2C-gtu3Z-Jdr6q-YRUEa4w13U

It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?

Quote from: jhkim on January 12, 2023, 02:19:57 PM
As for being unusual, the OGL v1.0a also gives access to the open content you write forever and without compensation as well. During the v1.0a period, WotC could have taken anyone's open content and used it in their own publications - while also loading it down with a ton of Product Identity restrictions. However, they almost never did so. Apparently there were two WotC products over 22 years that used any open content - despite there being an enormous amount of v1.0a OGL open content available.

Perpetual, irrevocable access is unusual for commercial agreements, but it isn't unusual for open source licenses.

What's missing in 1.1 compared to v1.0a is the ability for third parties to declare their own Product Identity. In general, v1.1 isn't written as a share-alike general open license. It is specific that it is an agreement directly between WotC and each author - and couldn't be used between other parties the way that v1.0a has been.

Yeah, I know this already. I've pointed it out at least three or four times over the last few days. Are you one of those people that says "dropped something" when someone definitely knows they dropped something?

Quote from: Jam The MF on January 12, 2023, 05:25:44 PM
It's like some powerful arcane entity, has compelled WOTC to self destruct?

Are you sure you weren't banned from RPG.net for posting the same stupid one-liner in multiple threads?

Quote from: Daddy Warpig on January 12, 2023, 02:44:40 PM
Text of the ostensible leak below.

Quote from: Semaj Khan on January 12, 2023, 12:35:54 PM
Insider leak claims WOTC execs think we're a bunch of cows fit only for milking. Subscription cancellations are being monitored right now with the ambience in the office that they might have fucked up.

Lesson to take away from all this: never let anyone named Williams anywhere near D&D.

I'm sending this message because I fear for the health of a community I love, and I
know what the leaders at WOTC are looking at:

- They are briefly delaying rollout of OGL changes due to the backlash.
- Their decision making is based entirely on the provable impact to their bottom
line.
- Specifically they are looking at DDB subscriptions and cancellations as it is the
quickest financial data they currently have.
- They are still hoping the community forgets, moves on, and they can still push
this through.

The part in bold makes me laugh.

Hasbro just nuked the entire OGL TTRPG industry, with implied threats of weaponized lawfare used against content creators.....and with the additional unspoken implication that they might also use highly weaponized deplatforming tactics even against ordinary normies posting D&D content on their shitty blogs.

People will not forget or move on, because they can't. Who would be dumb enough to trust Hasbro now? Nobody with three or more functional brain cells would use their shitty closed OGL 1.1. This clusterfuck affects everything in the 3rd party publisher OGL industry, and probably has huge unknown ramifications for all open source material in the computer gaming industry, and we still don't know how this will affect non-OGL TTRPG gamers and companies. Hasbro's current behavior indicates that it's very likely that they will attempt to engage in subtle weaponized deplatforming tactics against all non-OGL games on Kickstarter, DriveThruRPG, IndieGoGo....and possibly even on YouTube and Facebook.

Essentially, Hasbro just (unofficially) declared war against the entire gaming industry and hobby.

Hasbro's ruthless (and hilariously stupid) attack against both TTRPG content creators and gamers is the biggest news in the tabletop gaming industry in the past 23 years. They cannot wait this out, but they will foolishly try. It's not even just the fact that these people are scheming and evil that makes this situation so ridiculous, but it's also obvious that they don't understand TTRPGs.....nor do they really understand the hobby and industry surrounding it. Hasbro just made an enormous tactical mistake that they will not fix, and I'm glad.......because this is how a monopoly dies.