And you can't publish anything new for 5e or something?
The Upcoming New OGL 1.1 vs. OGL 1.0a and Cepheus
- Thread starter Nathan Brazil
- Start date
daryen
SOC-14 1K
But you can't update it. You can't change it. You can't add to it. Anything else has to use 1.2.
Not being hopeful. Merely reporting.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
Well, yeah.
I just meant that this was not a "win" for those wanting to save 1.0a. This was WOTC just choosing which battles they want to fight. But, due to their experiences with the 4e license and due to the plans they apparently have for OneDnD, it is absolutely imperative for them to kill 1.0a. It has to die for them to have a chance to succeed in what they seem to want to do.
By both removing already existing 1.0a products from the discussion, and making sure the core mechanics (without the spells and monsters) are released with a CC license, they excise the stuff they can live without and focus on what makes a difference to them. They actually seem to be adapting pretty well to what is going on. (Don't get me wrong: still sucks for anyone who used 1.0a. Really sucks for anyone doing 5e content. I am just saying WOTC is learning how to change their attack. Unfortunately, they aren't stopping the actual attack.)
It's kinda funny, but really they have already killed off 1.0a. People keep saying that they can't do that, and the final decision has to be made by the courts. But, irrespective of the money, no one has time for that. While WOTC may, in the end, lose the court case, that will be so many years into the future that anyone that used to rely on the 1.0a license will have had to move on. And even if the court case does succeed, there will be no one left using it to take useful advantage of it. So ... 1.0a is pretty much dead irrespective of whether that is legal or not.
In a lot of ways, it becomes important as to what the expiration date on OGL 1.0 is. If it's February 1, 2023, then it is certainly not a win. If it's February 1, 2053, then it is.
I would, of course, assume the actual date will be closer to the former than the latter.
daryen
SOC-14 1K
Here is my assumption: it is a "permeable" expiration with a trick play.
Something like this: License 2.0 (picking a random version number to have one) is released on (picking a random date arbitrarily) 7/1/2023. With the release of the new license, 1.0a is officially "de-authorized". The new license explicitly states that, for all intents and purposes, license 1.0a no longer exists at all. However, all products that currently exist are allowed to continue to exist (i.e. continue to be sold), as is, indefinitely. All products in process (with the parameters around that to be specified; assume somewhere between 6 and 12 months) may continue and be released with the text of 1.0a and also be grandfathered in. Anything new, whether started after the release of 2.0, or released after the grace period, must use and adhere to the new 2.0 license. This includes any new editions, updates, expansions, or replacements of existing product.
Sounds reasonable, right? Here's the kicker: The only way to get any of the benefits of using the 1.0a license after the (hypothetical) 7/1/2023 date is to fundamentally accept the new license. If you reject the 2.0 license, then you implicitly forfeit all extensions around the 1.0a license terms. You have to buy-in in order to get the benefits of the grandfathering and grace period. If you don't, then you forfeit the protections for 1.0a and your existing products do need to be withdrawn.
That's what I expect it to eventually boil down to.
(I was going to write more, but there's no point. The big thing is that as long as you are not doing D&D clone stuff, you'll be fine. If you are, you have to hope Paizo doesn't just protect themselves. And if you make 5E stuff, you're probably screwed.)
Well, as they say in my part of the country, I don't have a dog in that hunt. My problems are somewhat related, but from a different direction.
Spinward Flow
SOC-14 1K
Q: What does OneDnD mean?
A: It reflects the anticipated size of their desired market.
One whale to rule them all.
One whale to buy them.
One whale t- eh, you know the rest ...
You mean :"OnCe D&D"?
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Don't diss whales, some spend tens of kilobux to pay to win.
Which might have been an unstated business plan.
Which might have been an unstated business plan.
Just remember: The OGL 1.0a itself is NOT open content itself; it has very clearly been labeled copyright, and bars unauthorized modifications to itself.
I'd expect the argument in court to boil down to, "We no longer permit copying the license." And that. if they can do so, pointing out that the use of 1.0a requires including the copyrighted license document, modified very specifically.
Given that the 9th circuit rule ST:TNG a totally separate property from TOS... we can't even assume a modicum of common sense from them.
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Every Insider Leak I've Been Given On Wizards of the Coast
In this video I reveal and breakdown every communication I've had with Wizards of the Coast employees over the last two weeks regarding the OGL 1.1, the future of D&D and D&D Beyond, and the general experience of working at Wizards.
Please do not harass or attack anyone at Wizards. Or anyone ever. Make your voice heard firmly and kindly.
How can we trust you?
Multiple people have had contact with these sources and can confirm I'm honestly and accurately relating information. Ginny Di, Ted from Nerd Immersion, Treantmonk, and the lawyer Noah Downs have all had access to verify that this material is real. This is a direct recounting of all that I have been sent.
How can we trust these "employees" are who they say they are?
All these employees reached out to me initially over email. Immediately, I ignored those emails, and messaged the person they were claiming to be directly on Linkedin via a burner account I created for this purpose. This was always the first step of verification. Once the person had respoded via Linkedin, I had confirmation that, at the very least, someone with both this person's email address and linkedin profile was getting in touch.
From here I opened communications, and requested additional proof. This involved a direct, face-to-face call, and usually additional contact via the person's social media. When dealing with senior employees, I was also provided internal WotC documentation that verified their position.
How was this information gathered?
I stayed on face-to-face calls with employees usually only for a few minutes to verify their identity. In some cases, we spoke further, but the calls were not recorded.
All the quotes that appear in this video were sent to me via email, whatsapp, or similar IM services. In the interest of protecting the sources, all quotes (with the exception of the quotes on personal experience of the company at the end) have been fed through a syntax paraphraser bot. The employees then checked over these rephrasings to ensure the message they were communicating was still accurate.
Can we trust this information?
It is essential to recognise that all personal accounts come with a human bias. Everything in this video has been checked a verified by multiple employees (unbenknownst to each other). There is no material in this video that comes from only a single source that could not be verified.
Although bias is inevitable in any account from a human, I believe that when multiple people (across multiple departments) are saying the same things, we can put a lot more trust in that information.
However, I'd ask that your remember two things:
1) These employees felt the need to risk their livelihoods to come forward. It is unlikely they would have done so had they not had extremely serious concerns regarding Wizards of the Coast and the OGL. Please bear this in mind when evalutating their comments. Content employees usually don't risk everything to break silence.
2) I am merely representing to the best of my ability what these people have told me. I do not work at Wizards. However, I believe all the information I present in this video to be true. Not only was it verified by multiple people, but it tracks with leaks others have exposed (from insiders I am not in contact with), and explains a great deal of WotC's actions over the last year in a way that WotC's own accounts of their behaviour do not.
What about the source who told you the survey's weren't read?
I failed to accurately represent the information I was given by one source regarding surveys in D&D. I was openly rebbuted by members of the design team on this point. They have said they did, and do, take written survey material into account. I believe them.
I've posted the full thread where I contact the employee who gave me that information to understand where I failed. You can find it on my twitter, and also in the previous video on the channel.
I beleive that person to be honest but I feel I can no longer ask that you trust them. They are not present in this review.
Why are you doing this?
I made a promise to the community and these employees that I would share everything they told me. This video is me completing on that promise. I will not be sharing any leaks anymore. All information will be passed directly to Linda Codega, a real reporter, at Gizmodo.
Will you still cover the OGL?
Yes, I will cover news as it drops from journalists and Wizards of the Coast directly.
What if I don't believe a word you say?
Skepticism is healthy online. You should view all leaks with a healthy level of doubt. I believe I have provided all the evidence I can short of risking compromising the identity of these employees that I am sharing information honestly.
All I ask is, whatever your feelings toward me or this channel, you set them aside to review this information honestly and critically.
Primarily, increasing revenue from one hundred fifty megabux per annum, to breaking a gigabux per annum, for the Dungeons and Dragons product range.
In this video I reveal and breakdown every communication I've had with Wizards of the Coast employees over the last two weeks regarding the OGL 1.1, the future of D&D and D&D Beyond, and the general experience of working at Wizards.
Please do not harass or attack anyone at Wizards. Or anyone ever. Make your voice heard firmly and kindly.
How can we trust you?
Multiple people have had contact with these sources and can confirm I'm honestly and accurately relating information. Ginny Di, Ted from Nerd Immersion, Treantmonk, and the lawyer Noah Downs have all had access to verify that this material is real. This is a direct recounting of all that I have been sent.
How can we trust these "employees" are who they say they are?
All these employees reached out to me initially over email. Immediately, I ignored those emails, and messaged the person they were claiming to be directly on Linkedin via a burner account I created for this purpose. This was always the first step of verification. Once the person had respoded via Linkedin, I had confirmation that, at the very least, someone with both this person's email address and linkedin profile was getting in touch.
From here I opened communications, and requested additional proof. This involved a direct, face-to-face call, and usually additional contact via the person's social media. When dealing with senior employees, I was also provided internal WotC documentation that verified their position.
How was this information gathered?
I stayed on face-to-face calls with employees usually only for a few minutes to verify their identity. In some cases, we spoke further, but the calls were not recorded.
All the quotes that appear in this video were sent to me via email, whatsapp, or similar IM services. In the interest of protecting the sources, all quotes (with the exception of the quotes on personal experience of the company at the end) have been fed through a syntax paraphraser bot. The employees then checked over these rephrasings to ensure the message they were communicating was still accurate.
Can we trust this information?
It is essential to recognise that all personal accounts come with a human bias. Everything in this video has been checked a verified by multiple employees (unbenknownst to each other). There is no material in this video that comes from only a single source that could not be verified.
Although bias is inevitable in any account from a human, I believe that when multiple people (across multiple departments) are saying the same things, we can put a lot more trust in that information.
However, I'd ask that your remember two things:
1) These employees felt the need to risk their livelihoods to come forward. It is unlikely they would have done so had they not had extremely serious concerns regarding Wizards of the Coast and the OGL. Please bear this in mind when evalutating their comments. Content employees usually don't risk everything to break silence.
2) I am merely representing to the best of my ability what these people have told me. I do not work at Wizards. However, I believe all the information I present in this video to be true. Not only was it verified by multiple people, but it tracks with leaks others have exposed (from insiders I am not in contact with), and explains a great deal of WotC's actions over the last year in a way that WotC's own accounts of their behaviour do not.
What about the source who told you the survey's weren't read?
I failed to accurately represent the information I was given by one source regarding surveys in D&D. I was openly rebbuted by members of the design team on this point. They have said they did, and do, take written survey material into account. I believe them.
I've posted the full thread where I contact the employee who gave me that information to understand where I failed. You can find it on my twitter, and also in the previous video on the channel.
I beleive that person to be honest but I feel I can no longer ask that you trust them. They are not present in this review.
Why are you doing this?
I made a promise to the community and these employees that I would share everything they told me. This video is me completing on that promise. I will not be sharing any leaks anymore. All information will be passed directly to Linda Codega, a real reporter, at Gizmodo.
Will you still cover the OGL?
Yes, I will cover news as it drops from journalists and Wizards of the Coast directly.
What if I don't believe a word you say?
Skepticism is healthy online. You should view all leaks with a healthy level of doubt. I believe I have provided all the evidence I can short of risking compromising the identity of these employees that I am sharing information honestly.
All I ask is, whatever your feelings toward me or this channel, you set them aside to review this information honestly and critically.
Primarily, increasing revenue from one hundred fifty megabux per annum, to breaking a gigabux per annum, for the Dungeons and Dragons product range.
Straybow
SOC-14 1K
I'm reasonably sure that isn't the case. SRD is public domain. You can use, quote, and refer/hyperlink to it all you want, for any purpose. Even a straight-up competitor game system. You can take the SRD, rewrite every spell and item description, and publish that as your own work. Because it is your own work. TSR/WotC can't copyright the game mechanics, only text descriptions.
Where it gets grey is Product Identity. If you want to market your material as compatible with WotC's product, OGL covers the use of "d20" and "D&D" in that context. "d20" is product identity, although since it is a common annotation for the size of a regular polyhedral die your could fight off a lawsuit (hope you've got deep pockets). "D&D" is product identity. I could make a game called Dwarfmines and Dracomorphs™, but I couldn't then call it "D&D" or "DnD" since they've got almost 50 years of prior use. So I'd be better off with Caves and Chimeras™ so I can use C&C. Oh, shoot. Troll Lord Games has already used "C&C." Back to the thinking cap.
If I made a race of psychic squid-headed monsters called Brain-Flensers™ that suck your brains out with their tentacles, I'd be treading on very thin ice. If my psychics mechanics are different from D&D psionics mechanics it would help differentiate my brain-flensers, provided the mechanics make a difference in how their attacks are described (even though mechanics aren't copyrightable). I might want to make them puce instead of mauve.
OGL simply says that if you follow WotC's publishing guidelines, they won't sue to stop your publications or make you pay them royalties. You can even make use of their PI monsters in a scenario. Pathfinder is a near-clone of 3.5e d20. They didn't follow WotC's OGL guidelines. But Paizo made it different enough that WotC didn't want to engage in a legal battle.
WotC didn't want to compete against themselves by continuing to publish 3.5e material along with new 4e material. Therefore WotC doesn't want to litigate over a version of their D&D game that they no longer publish or support. Paizo didn't include references to beholders, displacer beasts, mind flayers, and a few other Product Identity monsters, so that avenue of attack is not vulnerable.
The d20 SRD or the 5.1 SRD are copyrighted by Wizards of the Coast.
System Rules Document Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
System Reference Document 5.1 Copyright 2016, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, Chris Perkins, Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee, James Wyatt, Robert J. Schwalb, Bruce R. Cordell, Chris Sims, and Steve Townshend, based on original material by E.
Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
The only exception in the United State is Title 17, Section 102(b)
17 U.S. Code § 102 - Subject matter of copyright: In general
However, the expression of a procedure, system, etc. is protected by copyright. Hence rewriting game mechanics in your own words is likely OK.
But it is an open question whether a specific arrangement of methods and concepts is also an expression protected by copyright. Hit points are not protected, Armor Class is not protected, rolling 1d20 is not protected. But if your work has hit points, armor class, and 1d20 it may be considered a definitive work if the court decides that specific combination is a creative expression thus covered under copyright.
However there is a evidence that is not the case as the copyright office explicitly warns about this.
Games
The part I highlighted in bold is what traditionally what makes publishers nervous in trying to work with D&D related material prior to the year 2000 and the OGL. For all its flaws the d20 SRD under the OGL 1.0a and later the SRD 5.0/5.1 provided certainty that Wizards was OK with the use of the material and won't try to argue every point as long you follow the license. That is until Hasbro/Wizards decided they would be better switching to the Chaotic Greed alignment.
It is looking like Unconditional Surrender folks.
The main point germane to Cepheus
From the linked PDF
The main point germane to Cepheus
From the linked PDF
DID WE JUST WIN?
There some mop up like getting a 1.0b license with irrevocable in it and including Ryan Dancey definition of authorization but yes. I think we just won.
Rob Conley
Bat in the Attic Games
Condottiere
SOC-14 5K
Ceasefire.
