Hacker News Reader

> The issue with the revocation of the OGL 1.0a license is that it affects all of those games.

How so, if they're not using WotC IP?

Honest question, it seems absurd to me that the can cancel a license and have it affect people who licensed their own IP under those conditions.

IANAL. I am looking at a copy of OGL 1.0a and find this paragraph:

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

I believe that the crux of the matter is "authorized version of this License". I can see a few ways to argue that this phrase gives WotC the right to revoke any version of the license other than the most current one.

So not being a lawyer and not giving legal advice, to me this seems to say that as someone producing something with OGL1.0, "you MAY replace it with a newer, authorized version" means that if you don't, the old version stays, or goes away entirely ? I,e. you then may decide to use another new fresh license of your own choosing ? Or it becomes unlicensed ?

Because if there is a requirement that at anytime an authorized version were to be used, wouldn't the language needed be "you MUST replace it with a newer, authorized version" ?

I don't read that as "we can revoke this retroactively on anything, even non-WoTC games" but I guess the lawyers will hash it out.

The OGL 1.1 license (according to the leaked draft/text) explicitly says that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license.

The 1.1 license is clear that any content using SRD (System Reference Document) content will be in violation unless they update to the 1.1 license (and thus comply with either OGL 1.1 Commercial, OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial, or the Fan Content license).

The situation around non-SRD OGL content is murkier.

> How so, if they're not using WotC IP?

The concern is that changing that making OGL 1.0a unauthorized (has this already happened to 1.0?) has the effect banning further use of it with new works derived from works originally licensed under it or OGL 1.0 under the terms of ant OGL version (this relies on the any authorized version clause being seen as restrictive, not permissive.)

Its theoretically fixable for non-WotC dependent content, if everyone upstream relicenses under different terms starting from the root, but that's not going to help where creators are out of touch or license compatibility led to WotC content cross pollinating.

Same question, I cannot wrap my head around this. If this is true, the OGL was a trap. But how did they not realize this, did they have no lawyers going over the license?

I don't see how Wizards can "revoke" the OGL retroactively.

I really don't see how they can "revoke" the OGL on non-WoTC games.

Maybe Wizbro is mad that they're not getting any of the money that youtube and roll20 are taking in, but pulling a Nintendo seems completely counterproductive, since youtube and streamers are basically advertising D&D and helping newcomers learn how to play the game, and roll20 expands the group of players who can play (and also enabled groups to continue - or start - during the pandemic!)

OGL 1.0a:

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

If next OGL says that OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized - then it's retroactively invalidated.

This clause doesn't grant updated versions the authority to deauthorize prior versions.

> affects video (like Critical Role's Legends of Vox Machina)

I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :) While we know that the origins of the show is in DnD there is nothing in it they could claim copyright over. It is the same as if a shower manufacturer would like to claim an idea I had while showering.

And while the CR team is quite small next to Hasbro, they have Amazon Studios as a producer who could probably lend them firepower.

CR Campaign 1 was on Pathfinder until they started trying to broadcast. You can see in the first few episodes how they struggle with remembering that the rules are different, Taliesen Jaffe ended up with a completely custom class because nothing mapped.

The hunter also keeps thinking that her pet is useful, which apparently is a thing in PF, but is definitely not in 5e.

As for:

> I would like to see them try biting into that apple. :)

They are already getting a bite of that apple. It's called free advertising, which they've been getting for almost 10 years now and all of the attendant profits from people trying to start their own Critical Role and buying models and books to go along with it.

And in the case of CR, they're also the publishers for some books based on CR, which means they're getting royalties from that as well.

I said this is double-dipping, but it's triple-dipping. It's just greed. Of the same sort we often have to deal with here, where something is done to build a community and then the bean counters try to figure out how to maximize profits. This isn't just bad for WotC or RPGs, things like this continue to set precedents that every company is lying to you and any outreach project is just about getting free labor.

They don't call it by name, but the prominent and frequent use of the Bigby's Hand spell seems like a vulnerability. My understanding is that WOTC defends their IP rights to the spells with specific characters' names attached (Tenser's, Bigby's, etc.)

They will have a proper licensing agreement of their own that WotC will be happy to amend with pretty much whatever, given the crazy marketing value they have.

You can't revoke a license. Any change in the OGL will affect new products, not what was already made.

You can if it's argued that the license was revocable, or forced to use new licenses. That's why everyone is angry, it's vague and who can afford to fight Hasbro in court when they use the vagueness to start a bully campaign against smaller creators first?

You can't revoke it but the question is whether it can affect future redistribution of pre-existing derivatives. The license appears to say so, but even if it does it may not be legal and thus would be voided.

Yeah, I understand it's complicated, but there is already a lot of FUD in the world about what copyright and licensing mean. The WotC/OGL discussion deserves a sober discussion by people who understand copyright and licensing, not going along with the fever emanating from places like Twitter.

> Note that some of these (e.g. Pathfinder) make use of the D&D base rules and setting

Pathfinder does not use Forgotten Realms or any other WotC setting, afaik.

And Pathfinder 2nd edition is no longer based on the D&D rules.