The Upcoming New OGL 1.1 vs. OGL 1.0a and Cepheus

[Nathan Brazil]

Am I an alarmist? When my favorite RPG is potentially involved, you bet your bippy I am. Unapologetically.

Yes, this video itself specifically about the new version of Dungeons and Dragons, but I am curious about language invoking the "invalidation of OGL 1.0a". This is not merely a new 4th Edition D&D GSL or opinion as the YouTuber points out, quoted from the leaked WotC document itself a direct invalidation of 1.0a. Could be the YouTuber only cares about D&D. Still...

• Can OGL 1.0a be revoked, period?
• Does this revocation apply whole cloth to the 1.0a document or merely to Wizards use of it.
• If it does, where does this leave Cepheus SRD, and going back to the root, the Mongoose Traveller docs on which Cepheus relies on?

 

[infojunky]

Am I an alarmist? When my favorite RPG is potentially involved, you bet your bippy I am. Unapologetically.

Yes, this video itself specifically about the new version of Dungeons and Dragons, but I am curious about language invoking the "invalidation of OGL 1.0a". This is not merely a new 4th Edition D&D GSL or opinion as the YouTuber points out, quoted from the leaked WotC document itself a direct invalidation of 1.0a. Could be the YouTuber only cares about D&D. Still...

• Can OGL 1.0a be revoked, period?

Maybe, kinda in terms of what WOTC controls.

Does this revocation apply whole cloth to the 1.0a document or merely to Wizards use of it.

Not enough information. I suspect it framed in terms of further use of WOTC IP.

• 
  
• If it does, where does this leave Cepheus SRD, and going back to the root, the Mongoose Traveller docs on which Cepheus relies on?

Well that is up to Marc and Mongoose mostly. Though I figure we won't see much change.

 

[Tobias]

• Can OGL 1.0a be revoked, period?

The existence of the Pathfinder RPG says: No. We've been down this entire path before, with the switch from D&D 3.x to 4e.

It would also run counter to basic principles of law (but then again I am not a legal expert.)

• Does this revocation apply whole cloth to the 1.0a document or merely to Wizards use of it.
• If it does, where does this leave Cepheus SRD, and going back to the root, the Mongoose Traveller docs on which Cepheus relies on?

Again, my non-expert opinion: Nowhere. Even if WotC tried to retroactively remove the OGL from their old content: It does not affect content which they never had any rights to to begin with.

 

[Condottiere]

As I understand the issue, it's Hasbro needing to squeeze extra profitability from their existing intellectual property, since what had probably been their original plan, to sell off Wizards of the Coast to a Chinese corporation fell through.

My opinion is, for the European flavoured fantasy side of roleplaying, once Tolkien's Lord of the Rings becomes public domain, it doesn't matter anymore.

Game mechanics could be waiting for someone who has the time and energy to create a fairly simple one that can be adapted to fit any genre, and can rip off any published setting for flavour; in fact, now that I think off it, AI programmes can rip off existing artists and authors to present a somewhat coherent work of adapted art.

It could be as simple as taking a settings book, and it automatically changes the game mechanics within, and maybe the names.

I think the concept is renting, in that if you use what they perceive to be their intellectual property as part of your published work, you have to pay them and they have ultimate control over it's use.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The existence of the Pathfinder RPG says: No. We've been down this entire path before, with the switch from D&D 3.x to 4e.

I remember 3.x community and industry was speculating nervously, yes. D&D 4e ultimately was released under the GSL and speculation aside I don't recall any direct communications publicly or leaks from WotC about removing or modifying the OGL itself. So yea Pathfinder, "Traveller Compatible" products back then and Cepheus Engine.

This seems different because there are specific communications within WotC and more ominously using versioning language. Versioning implies claims of ownership via lineage. In a computer, public opinion, spiritual, ownership and perhaps legal as well. Just like
a Reich (3 so far)
an Imperium (3 because of sneaky Cleon Zhunastu, 4 if you count The New New Era and Avery LOL)
Windows (11+)
a Property of Inheritance (in programming or security )

Not merely a renaming or branding.

 

[Tobias]

As I understand the issue, it's Hasbro needing to squeeze extra profitability from their existing intellectual property, since what had probably been their original plan, to sell off Wizards of the Coast to a Chinese corporation fell through.

My opinion is, for the European flavoured fantasy side of roleplaying, once Tolkien's Lord of the Rings becomes public domain, it doesn't matter anymore.

You could and can do European flavoured fantasy as much as you like without any license. Hundreds, nay thousands of existing game worlds (and many more literary and video game worlds) with all the staple elements pay testament to that.

What you cannot do is set your works in a specific existing game world (say, the Forgotten Realms) without a license.

Game mechanics could be waiting for someone who has the time and energy to create a fairly simple one that can be adapted to fit any genre, and can rip off any published setting for flavour; in fact, now that I think off it, AI programmes can rip off existing artists and authors to present a somewhat coherent work of adapted art.

Game mechanics are not protected under copyright to begin with, and they are very hard to protect as patents (and general RPG mechanics aren't patented so that ship has sailed.)

Seriously, I think you are way overestimating the impact of this "new OGL" business. It is really only about the perceived "under-monetization" of D&D, and only D&D, as a brand. How specifically? IMHO:
a.) Myriads small businesses make small amounts of money from D&D under the existing license. WotC's bosses apparently thought "Well, a lot of small change adds up to a fortune" and decided they want to wet their beak.
b.) Apparently WotC is also getting a bit jittery that you could apply the OGL to real moneymakers like video games or TV series or whathaveyou, so their new and improved OGL is going to be limited to books and ebooks.

But basically, to spin this into an effort to retroactively get their grubby fingers on parts or all of the industry would be doomed from the start. Because:
a.) The OGL 1.0a is there. They couldn't get the cat back in the bag even if the cat hadn't grown to be a ferocious tiger in the decades since they released it.
b.) Even without any license, there is actually a surprising amount of leeway you have in making stuff that is compatible with existing intellectual properties in games. Remember: WotC tried the same thing when 4E came out: More restrictive license that would basically give WotC rights to what publishers create under that license.
Enter KenzerCo. When WotC said: "Hey, you gonna publish a new version of your Kingdoms of Kalamar setting for 4E, right? Well, we have this new license for you to use then", Kenzer basically responded with "Pass. We'll just publish it without that license. Without any license, in fact. That is perfectly legal. ... Did I mention that in my day job I am head IP lawyer for a major corporation?"
And they did. And WotC did everything in their power that would stop this undermining of their license scheme. And you know that that was?
Nothing.

 

[Tobias]

I remember 3.x community and industry was speculating nervously, yes.

Yeah, because they were ninnies. Retroactively undoing the license was not and is not possible. If it was, or WotC even thought it was, they would have killed off Pathfinder long ago.

As I said, not an expert, but considering what I learned when v1.0 of this fiasco happened with 4E: Don't worry. Traveller is going to be fine. WotC has no power over it.

For me, this just means that when running D&D, I will stick to 5E and skip 6E.

 

[Condottiere]

Sometimes, the point is not whether you are right or wrong, but whether you can pay your lawyers longer.

 

[MichaelSTee]

You don’t have to use the new license. Use the license that Cepheus uses, and you will be completely legal.

 

[Bartleby]

I have never really paid attention to any of this, but why would something like Cepheus use the OGL when it does not have anything to do with WOTC or D&D? I realize this is probably a stupid question but I never understood that.

 

[Starglim]

I have never really paid attention to any of this, but why would something like Cepheus use the OGL when it does not have anything to do with WOTC or D&D? I realize this is probably a stupid question but I never understood that.

Cepheus Engine uses Mongoose's Traveller SRDs, which as you say don't have any connection to D&D although the OGL 1.0a itself is copyright to WotC, as well as bits of T20 (which refers back to the d20 SRD, the open version of D&D), d20 Modern and Swords and Wizardry.

 

[Bartleby]

Thanks Starglim. So Cepheus Engine uses some "T20 bits" and that is why it needs the OGL? Or does the Traveller SRD use T20?

 

[Dragoner]

The license is copyright wotc.

 

[Bartleby]

The license is copyright wotc.

But what does that have to do with Traveller? Or Marc? Or us? Why would I need a WOTC license to publish a Traveller clone?

 

[Starglim]

Thanks Starglim. So Cepheus Engine uses some "T20 bits" and that is why it needs the OGL? Or does the Traveller SRD use T20?

Mongoose has licensed its Traveller SRDs under the OGL. They don't themselves refer to any other Open Game Content.

15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

Traveller System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.

Cepheus uses those documents and apparently some other material. I've summarised above from Cepheus Engine's OGL.

 

[Starglim]

But what does that have to do with Traveller? Or Marc? Or us? Why would I need a WOTC license to publish a Traveller clone?

The original author, current copyright holder (I'm not certain offhand who that is), people who they license to copy and republish their stuff and customers who buy and privately use it, nothing. The original publishers' books for most Traveller versions (including Mongoose and GURPS, but excepting T20) don't use the OGL.

If you wanted to publish a Traveller clone, you'd either have to write it all yourself and probably get legal advice to be sure it was completely non-derivative of work owned by anyone else, or you'd need a license from the copyright holder(s) for what you used. WotC has written such a license and Mongoose has used it to license a version of their game, to allow third party publishers to support their game line without lengthy processes.

 

[Dragoner]

But what does that have to do with Traveller? Or Marc? Or us? Why would I need a WOTC license to publish a Traveller clone?

The current cepheus uses that license. I am not a lawyer, however as far as I know, you do not need a license to make a clone.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

But what does that have to do with Traveller? Or Marc? Or us? Why would I need a WOTC license to publish a Traveller clone?

My point for starting this thread WAS NOT D&D Content or any d20 derived Traveller-esque content of Traveller20 or the QLI successor Sci-Fi20 (Traveller20 with all the Third Imperium content cut). PERIOD.: It is about the license framework for new published content and potential impact for old content.

So why should YOU care Bartleby? Here is exactly how:
After a long development process you have made TravellerClone- Cepheus Adventure in a Multiversal Future! You feel it is the final word on Cepheus and even detractors have said "Not too shabby man"
Now it is time to publish it. What framework will you use to provide accreditation for sources you used, permission to to use and a friendly license for people who want to make TravellerClone- Cepheus Adventure in a Multiversal Future! content? - After Jan. 13 (allegedly) WotC is shutting down the OGL 1.0a license period. Not just that future D&D-ish content has to use OGL 1.1 but they are revoking 1.0a entirely. So what you gonna do.

Samardan Press released the first Cepheus SRD in July 2016. Jason Kemp made it using the OGL 1.0a: If in fact WotC can remove the licence from legal use, what can you use?

15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE
Open Game License v 1.0a Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.
High Guard System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
Mercenary System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002-2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb,
Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, Eric Cagle, David Noonan, Stan!, Christopher Perkins, Rodney Thompson, and JD Wiker, based
on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes,
Andy Collins, and JD Wiker.
Swords & Wizardry Core Rules, Copyright 2008, Matthew J. Finch
System Reference 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.
T20 - The Traveller’s Handbook Copyright 2002, Quiklink Interactive, Inc. Traveller is a trademark of Far Future Enterprises
and is used under license.
Traveller System Reference Document Copyright © 2008, Mongoose Publishing.
Traveller is © 2008 Mongoose Publishing. Traveller and related logos, character, names, and distinctive likenesses thereof
are trademarks of Far Future Enterprises unless otherwise noted. All Rights Reserved. Mongoose Publishing Ltd Authorized
User.
Cepheus Engine System Reference Document, Copyright © 2016 Samardan Press; Author Jason "Flynn" Kemp

 

[MichaelSTee]

After Jan. 13 (allegedly) WotC is shutting down the OGL 1.0a license period. Not just that future D&D-ish content has to use OGL 1.1 but they are revoking 1.0a entirely.

As I understand it, WotC can't revoke the earlier license. Once product is released under OGLv1.0, it's released. And no one HAS to use the new license. If you write something using stuff released under v1.0, then you should keep it under the same version. I think WotC just wants to 'encourage' publishers to use the new version of the license so that they can get the sales data (as mentioned in the new version).

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Yeah, because they were ninnies. Retroactively undoing the license was not and is not possible. If it was, or WotC even thought it was, they would have killed off Pathfinder long ago.

As I said, not an expert, but considering what I learned when v1.0 of this fiasco happened with 4E: Don't worry. Traveller is going to be fine. WotC has no power over it.

For me, this just means that when running D&D, I will stick to 5E and skip 6E.

As I understand it, WotC can't revoke the earlier license...

With regards to 5e, buckle up Tobias. MichaelSTee, this article quotes reactions from 3.x company owners and have concern for their old products, not just future products...
Chris Pramas founder of Green Ronin is VERY concerned about Mutants and Masterminds
EN Publishing CEO Russ Morrissey weighed in as well with one of those powerless "we hope to coninue" nice nice answers
and Paizo did not return any comment...

Polygon.com - D&D’s stricter licensing rules might impact some beloved RPGs