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

[MichaelSTee]

This is from the license V1.0a:
9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
authorised version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any
version of this License.

SO maybe WotC may declare v1.0a as not authorised, and thus not valid.
But it would seem to conflict with this, from the same license:

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual,
worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

Section 4 does not mention any subsequent version of the license, just mentions "this License".

 

[Nathan Brazil]

And I am stating that that is exactly they what they are trying to revoke. Can they? Actual IP lawyers (not merely I play one online) not involved in this exact situation are debating this now over on Twitter as a mental exercise (yea I watch that madhouse also).

This linchpin of this alleged money grab is that it is being mandated by Hasbro, not by WotC per se with that "do it or we shut down or sell this subdivision" Which Hasbro has done with other trademarks and IP it has acquired over the decades like Milton Bradley, Parker Brothers and of course for us, Avalon Hill. Why? Because Hasbro had a very bad year. And Hasbro, not WotC has more lawyers and clout than anyone else who publishes games. So in turn Cynthia Williams and Dan Rawson whose backgrounds are from Microsoft and not from tabletop gaming are ... incentivised to succeed.

 

[MichaelSTee]

This linchpin of this initiative is being mandated by Hasbro, not WotC per se.

True, and they don't care about Cepheus Engine; it's nickel and dime stuff, compared to D&D-derived games. And they want a piece of the pie from anyone using anything derived from D&D.

 

[infojunky]

True, and they don't care about Cepheus Engine; it's nickel and dime stuff, compared to D&D-derived games. And they want a piece of the pie from anyone using anything derived from D&D.

To be honest Traveller as a whole is Nickel and Dime stuff where compared to Wotc holdings.

 

[Tobias]

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.

Ignore them and keep using OGL 1.0a. It does not cease to exist because WotC, in a different license you did not sign or agree to, said it does.

Or if you wanna wash your hands off them, publish the open content parts of your game under a new license with the same effect.

 

[Condottiere]

The business model is for continuous assured payments, rather than a large payout in a limited timespan.

Part of it is psychological, sunk costs by the customers.

The other part is attracting new customers, which means making the settings attractive for the current zeitgeist.

As for Traveller, it missed the boat five years ago to go somewhat mainstream, when there should have been a push for a television series, while the studios were flush with cash and desperately looking for existing intellectual property to monetize.

 

[whartung]

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
authorised version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any
version of this License.

SO maybe WotC may declare v1.0a as not authorised, and thus not valid.

This is key.

A license is a license.

Whatever license YOU CHOOSE TO USE, you can use. The updated licenses suggests that FUTURE content that THEY are going to produce will be under the NEW license.

This doesn't affect anything under the old license(s), nor does it affect what you choose to do with your work.

If you deign to interoperate with their NEW stuff, then you'll be beholden to their current licensing terms. But the past is the past, and those cats are out of the bag.

 

[MichaelSTee]

Whartung, I agree with you. But I think that WOTC will try to argue the other way, and they will have the money and lawyers. Who on the other side has the money to fight them? Maybe the EFF?

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Ignore them and keep using OGL 1.0a. It does not cease to exist because WotC, in a different license you did not sign or agree to, said it does.

Or if you wanna wash your hands off them, publish the open content parts of your game under a new license with the same effect.

Sure you can use the OGL, however:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
authorised version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any
version of this License

Clause 9 is where those knowledgeable in law are debating what may happen. The stated intentions in the leak are that WotC is creating an updated license Meh.. But at the same time the leak also shows WotC is going to "de-authorize" 1.0a. The debate is can WotC in fact de-authorize 1.0a or not. There are legal precedents going both ways which is why they are debating. Then if they can de-authorize, what the impact would be to old products and publications and to new material regardless of the game or systems origin. For Cepheus at a minimum would mean you would have to use a different license since 1.1 would not be suitable.

 

[Tobias]

Sure you can use the OGL, however:

Quite.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any
authorised version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any
version of this License

And?

Replace "authorised" with "published" in both OGLs and you'll see how absurd the idea is. 1.0a is authorised because WotC did in fact authorise it. They cannot undo the reality of this act.
Note that even if it was ambiguos, which it not really is, it would not work for them because ambiguities are always interpreted to the detriment of the license drafter. On top of all that: WotC itself affirmed the interpretation that existing versions of the OGL cannot be voided for many, many years. Now doing a 180 on that interpretation would be such a blatant admission of bad faith on WotC's part that a judge would have to be absurdly incompetent (or corrupt) to go along with it.
Maybe that's what they're banking on, though I find it unlikely. Maybe it's a scare tactic. But more likely, their intention is simply to void the 1.0a for licensees who want to use content published under 1.1 - i.e. D&D 6E content. Because if you do that and thereby explicitly agree to their terms, you are in a different position from someone who just does not use the 1.1 - essentially you signed off on no longer using 1.0a
That is, of course, the exact same thing they tried with the GSL, just obfuscated to a degree by the fiction that 1.1 is a "version" of the OGL (which, by substance, it is not.) And of course, Wizards can issue whatever licensing terms they choose (including none at all) for all new content they publish.

Or put another way: I don't think WotC is delusional enough to think they can undo Pathfinder. But they may put things in place to prevent something like Pathfinder happen again on the basis of 6E.

(All of this is my personal interpretation. I have no Legal skill, just some Jack-o-T.)

 

[Tobias]

The more pressing question is: Does 1.1 still include language that the text of the license has to be included in any work that makes use of the licensed content?
Because if it does, I'd be torn: Is the fact the WotC expect licensees to append 10+ pages of legal lingo to their books hilarious or sad?

 

[whartung]

Who on the other side has the money to fight them? Maybe the EFF?

The biggest fish in the pond, with what little I know, would be the Pathfinder folks. They seem rather successful and I think they're square in the center of the reticle of these changes.

 

[Straybow]

OGL only covers use of trademark items. For D&D, it is the name in various forms, "d20," a bunch of monster names, names of iconic characters, various gods, etc. SRD != OGL. Using the SRD is free. It has been released into public domain. You can't claim it as your own work, or charge people for using it except perhaps a minimal fee for printing or an online subscription. That's why WotC couldn't stop Paizo from making a competing product.

 

[Condottiere]

There's (pre) existing art, which was one reason that Games Workshop starting renaming their races, in order to trademark them.

The only thing that doesn't appear to ever become public domain is Mickey Mouse. I hear Winnie the Pooh is going to be released as a horror flick.

 

[Tobias]

OGL only covers use of trademark items. For D&D, it is the name in various forms, "d20," a bunch of monster names, names of iconic characters, various gods, etc. SRD != OGL. Using the SRD is free. It has been released into public domain. You can't claim it as your own work, or charge people for using it except perhaps a minimal fee for printing or an online subscription. That's why WotC couldn't stop Paizo from making a competing product.

I don't think you have that right. The SRD is the "open content" released under the OGL. There are no parts of D&D which are in the public domain other than those which were in the public domain before D&D started using them.

The OGL does not include the trademarks, iconic characters, monsters, spells, setting information etc. which you mention at all. That's why you can make, say "Wyverns & Warriors", "Centaurs & Catacombs" or "Lindwurms & Labyrinths" (if these did not already exist, they do now), but not your own version of D&D.
Under the OGL you could also straight up copy the major part of the game rules and use it as a basis for your game. Without a license, you could still mostly do that, but you would have to rewrite the rules so they'd express the same concepts with different words. The rule concepts themselves are not, and never were, subject to copyright.

 

[Condottiere]

Basements and Bureaucrats.

 

[Spinward Flow]

Looks like there's more reporting on this topic from other sources ...

 

[Nathan Brazil]

The only thing that doesn't appear to ever become public domain is Mickey Mouse. I hear Winnie the Pooh is going to be released as a horror flick.

Mickey Mouse is set to become public domain at the end of 2023. Disney had received a special extension on Mickey Mouse copyright in the 90's which pissed EVERYONE ELSE who had their own stuff enter public domain. At this time there have been zero rumblings that they will try again.
Disney can keep the silhouette "ears" as the company's trademark forever. But once he goes public domain, you can make other similar image or content as long as you do not invoke the trademark image and "Walt Disney Corporation". You could name drop Walt himself, but not the company.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Replace "authorised" with "published" in both OGLs and you'll see how absurd the idea is. 1.0a is authorised because WotC did in fact authorise it. They cannot undo the reality of this act.

Maybe that's what they're banking on, though I find it unlikely. Maybe it's a scare tactic. But more likely, their intention is simply to void the 1.0a for licensees who want to use content published under 1.1 - i.e. D&D 6E content. Because if you do that and thereby explicitly agree to their terms, you are in a different position from someone who just does not use the 1.1 - essentially you signed off on no longer using 1.0a

Or put another way: I don't think WotC is delusional enough to think they can undo Pathfinder. But they may put things in place to prevent something like Pathfinder happen again on the basis of 6E.

Now that the weekend is over Tobias...
You may be correct that WotC is delusional. But nonetheless, it appears that are going to try to "de-authorize" 1.0a via clause 9, by stating somewhere in 1.1 in that the OGL 1.1 is a revision to 1.0a and henceforth 1.0a is no longer authorized for future use.
Is it fair? Honey badger ... er ... WotC don't care
Is it legal to do so? I dunno

But what it will certainly do if successful is lock ALL games including Cepheus from using 1.0a in the future. WotC can't take ownership of Cepheus or Traveller unless Mongoose Matt or Mr. Miller publish the base rules or something using 1.1. There is a specific clause indicating that WotC CAN TAKE said new content for no recompense, regardless of origin (system or game) simply because you used 1.1.

This effectively shuts down Virtual Tabletop because guess what license Roll20 was made under?.
On the otherhand Quick Link Interative had its own Traveller virtual tabletop software

The more pressing question is: Does 1.1 still include language that the text of the license has to be included in any work that makes use of the licensed content?
Because if it does, I'd be torn: Is the fact the WotC expect licensees to append 10+ pages of legal lingo to their books hilarious or sad?

That is hilarious, but the least of our worries. Yet if it is required to publish, then sad.

 

[Nathan Brazil]

Looks like there's more reporting on this topic from other sources ...

What? You think I was the only one panicking ?

Yes there are at least two petitions protesting WotC's course of action
I signed at this one: https://www.opendnd.games/
and this one at https://www.change.org/p/wizards-hasbro-do-not-change-the-ogl-license

Will it make a difference? Maybe not. Still, we grognards, crusty as we are, should support our fellow gamers. Even if they don't play the far superior Cepheus and Traveller RPG.