|
There's also all of this, as opposed to the simple attribution in 1.0a. It's not too onerous but it does add to the workload on a book, especially identifying everything changed from the SRD etc.quote:
From: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/legalcode
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
The Bee posted:I just saw Leperflesh's second edit and, uh, woof. They had me in the first half but "we can shut you down for any reason and you consent to not contest it in any way" sure is a thing. That's not particularly uncommon language in a license like this. But yeah, once again, don't release anything under this license that isn't hyper specifically adventure or addon content for just 5e/1DnD.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:58
|
|
|
I'm not seeing where the VTT policy is integrated into the OGL, it just seems to be a separate policy where they'll 'allow' your VTT to exist as long as it 'replicates the table top experience,' in a way that seems vague about what material is covered or not. Am I missing something? I don't understand what grounds they have to stop me from making a video game that uses the mechanics from 5e but not they're words or copyright, so maybe I'm off base completely.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 21:59
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I'm not seeing where the VTT policy is integrated into the OGL, it just send to be a separate policy where they'll 'allow' your VTT to exist as long as it 'replicates the table top experience,' in a way that seems vague about what material is covered or not. Am I missing something? Now, as far as mechanics go? Nothing as the basic mechanics are seemingly under CC, unless once again not a lawyer, the CC license has some stipulation I don't know about. But that doesn't allow you access to use their classes/items text etc etc
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:02
|
|
|
Dexo posted:Now, as far as mechanics go?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:I'm not seeing where the VTT policy is integrated into the OGL, it just seems to be a separate policy where they'll 'allow' your VTT to exist as long as it 'replicates the table top experience,' in a way that seems vague about what material is covered or not. Am I missing something? I was thinking the same thing I am not sure how they can stop you from using rules from the srd as fair use anyway for a video game. Didn’t the EFF already say accepting the ogl would give you fewer rights then fair use would with out the agreement? I’ll wait for people who are smarter then me to weigh in and explain it more I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:04
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:The idea that they can choose to stop offering the deal isn’t that debatable, like, no judge in earth is going to declare a company must continue to offer a deal, only uphold the deals already made. Of course they can stop offering new content under 1.0a, and even stop selling old content under it. But they aren't the sole party able to offer the deal anymore. Anyone who licensed content from WotC can continue to offer the content to others under the same license. Deauthorizing is their attempt to break that chain, and it is highly dubious legally, as there is no mechanism for it in the "4 corners" of the license. Additionally, prior official statements made it clear they couldn't do what they are now trying to do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:09
|
|
|
Vire posted:I was thinking the same thing I am not sure how they can stop you from using rules from the srd as fair use anyway for a video game. Didn’t the EFF already say accepting the ogl would give you fewer rights then fair use would with out the agreement? I’ll wait for people who are smarter then me to weigh in and explain it more I guess. The tradeoff is you don't need to wrestle with Wizards over the rules in the first place, and therefore are spared the painful Hasbro legal squeeze. Because even if they're wrong, you'll break before they do.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Tibalt posted:Right, so why wouldn't a VTT be allowed to have it's own animation for a magic missile for being too much like a video game, if a video game is allowed to exist anyway? My read was because far as the CC rules go it seems like no spells or the like are in there, which means that to use D&D spells specifically you'd need to use the SRD under 2.0, which states you can't have those things in there as written. Once again, just my reading of it. It's all loving weird, it just screams some lawyers trying to navigate what constitutes a video game vs a tabletop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
Arivia posted:As far as I’m aware, “they” didn’t decide anything. Rob Heinsoo decided he wanted Tweet back for the core rulebook at least, and since 13th Age is owned by him (but published by Pelgrane), that’s where the decision tree ends. You're right, I phrased that poorly. The decision appears to be entirely Heinsoo's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:10
|
|
|
"You can offer a deal that you say is eternal, then a few years later say it isn't" has massive repercussions for a lot of industries that I can think of right off the top of my head, and I'm not exactly a wizard of economics. This might be occurring in tabletop but I feel this will have far-reaching consequences if the courts uphold it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:18
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:"You can offer a deal that you say is eternal, then a few years later say it isn't" has massive repercussions for a lot of industries that I can think of right off the top of my head, and I'm not exactly a wizard of economics. This might be occurring in tabletop but I feel this will have far-reaching consequences if the courts uphold it. That is specifically why the term irrevocable started getting added into the text of these types of licenses and contracts. To remove any interpretation of statements and intent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:20
|
|
|
Also it is interesting the link to the virtual table top policy in section 1 b as a separate document. Does that mean they can change their vtt policy at anytime?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:22
|
|
|
eth0.n posted:Of course they can stop offering new content under 1.0a, and even stop selling old content under it. But they aren't the sole party able to offer the deal anymore. Anyone who licensed content from WotC can continue to offer the content to others under the same license. I think this point will end up moot because everyone is going to jump ship to the ORC or similar licenses that offer fewer headaches.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:23
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:The idea that they can choose to stop offering the deal isn’t that debatable, like, no judge in earth is going to declare a company must continue to offer a deal, only uphold the deals already made. I've seen convincing arguments that even though the original license never said it was "irrevocable", a courtroom argument that it was intended to be, and promoted as such, could be convincing to a judge. e. I agree it's likely to be moot, but for a different reason: I suspect most of the stuff people genuinely need, to keep publishing d20/3.x-compatible material, is going to fall under that more permissive creative commons license anyway. The notion of whether 1.0a can be "de-authorized" seems unlikely to me to be actually tested in court. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:24
|
|
|
Mors Rattus posted:I think this point will end up moot because everyone is going to jump ship to the ORC or similar licenses that offer fewer headaches. Yeah, Literally No reason to use this license unless you are making content to be on WotC's platforms(potentially) and want that fancy badge lol. Vire posted:Also it is interesting the link to the virtual table top policy in section 1 b as a separate document. Does that mean they can change their vtt policy at anytime? Okay, yeah I dunno what that means, that's maybe weird?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:26
|
|
|
It appears the "Fan Content" license for APs, podcasts, etc. hasn't changed, so all the complaints about that part are still in effect ("If this happens, you must immediately take down your Fan Content or face the Demogorgon (yeah, the big bad is back from being on loan)") so that's not great. I don't understand how these policies interact with the actual license.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:27
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Also god damnit. Did they really have to bring Tweet back? His co-author’s statement was to the effect of, “I literally cannot do this without him,” so yeah, they pretty much did unless they wanted to walk away from it altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:31
|
|
|
The Bee posted:Oh no, is the new 13th age edition not good? Feedback in the thread has been mixed: My Lovely Horse posted:Not gonna lie, the predominant feeling I'm starting to get is that somebody's hard at work turning 13th Age into another The Wizard Game, and even just the idea of that kinda turns me off it entirely. dwarf74 posted:We're implementing 2e's changes where possible into our ongoing campaign. but also the fact that there's been about 10 posts since the playtest started doesn't bode especially well
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:41
|
|
|
Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose.quote:Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:53
|
|
|
Dexo posted:That is specifically why the term irrevocable started getting added into the text of these types of licenses and contracts. To remove any interpretation of statements and intent. Sure, but the absence of it from a license that predates that common practice doesn't imply that it isn't irrevocable in practice. The fact that "perpetual" can easily imply "irrevocable" in normal meaning, and official communication at the time clearly presents it as irrevocable, is plenty of grounds to argue that it is irrevocable without specifically saying it. Also, the license gives specific grounds to "terminate" the license (another term that could be read as equivalent to "revoke"), and "because we don't like it anymore" is not one of them. Again, grounds to rule against WotC. Also, consider how many billion dollar franchises are old enough to rest on licenses before "irrevocable" became common practice. Imagine the chaos if there were a court precedent set that the word "irrevocable" was an absolute requirement in a license for it to be in fact irrevocable. It's entirely possible that multiple movie studios and others could support Paizo or anyone else that stands up to WotC on this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 22:56
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose. Kind of. That's saying if a court finds that any part of the license is invalid, and throws that part out, Wizards claims the right to say the rest of the agreement can't function without the thrown-out section and the entire agreement gets thrown out. Whether that would stand up in court, *shrug* IANAL
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:00
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:05
|
|
|
You're cutting off the part where it specifically says you can draw your own owlbear and that's fine.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose. Irrevocable* (*but revocable)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
I don't think that is that weird if I am reading that right you never have had the ability to use their artwork in a commercial product that seems pretty normal.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:07
|
|
|
That's literally Paizo's take too it's why the Foundry Pathfinder's implementation doesn't have any art.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
Piell posted:This part of the VTT agreement is what pops out at me upon a brief skim That's not part of the SRD. From what they are saying using animations would only affect things if your using it with WotC stuff. So if you use Magic Missile you can't use animations for it, but if Arcane Missile that does the same thing had animations then it would not matter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:13
|
|
|
MonsterEnvy posted:That's not part of the SRD. Not sure what you mean by this? That it's intrinsically OK to do that, since the SRD doesn't describe such things? If you've agreed to 1.1 in order to use an SRD licensed under it, then you've agreed to the VTT terms. If those elements are deemed to be too "video gamey" by WotC, then a VTT could be at a severe disadvantage compared to WotC's own VTT. edit: You clarified in a quick edit; will respond further shortly. edit2: I'm not sure the Magic Missile example can be read as exhaustive. I.e., that "non-tabletop-like" elements are OK, as long as they aren't representing something from the SRD. The general policy seems to say they aren't. There really needs to be a more legalistic statement of the VTT policy. eth0.n fucked around with this message at 23:20 on Jan 19, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose. This is not if they so choose, this allows them to invalidate that portion if a Judge says "hey you legally can't actually do this". Which is incredibly common. Not everything is a conspiracy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:16
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:So they're releasing the SRD under Creative Commons... minus the entirety of the sections describing races, classes, spells, monsters and magic items. I imagine that stuff will be filled in come the release of One D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
Kurieg posted:Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose. That’s not what that clause does. That’s a completely standard contractual severability clause. Otherwise, if one part of the contract was held invalid in court - eg if the 3b provision was void for public policy - the whole thing fails and you suddenly *will* lose your license even if that wasn’t the intent or desire of anyone, and even if you weren’t the one who challenged it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:17
|
|
|
CitizenKeen posted:A little sad that 13th Age is squandering this window. If you want a game that feels like 5E D&D but is better and not WotC, 13th Age is your best bet. Speaking of 13th Age, you can get an absolute shitload of 13th Age content for about $45 from Bundle Of Holding right now. https://bundleofholding.com/presents/13Mega
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:22
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:Speaking of 13th Age, you can get an absolute shitload of 13th Age content for about $45 from Bundle Of Holding right now. https://bundleofholding.com/presents/13Mega i spent three years running eyes of the stone thief so can't see any way I'd use it but that's a really really good collection
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:27
|
|
|
Lamuella posted:Speaking of 13th Age, you can get an absolute shitload of 13th Age content for about $45 from Bundle Of Holding right now. https://bundleofholding.com/presents/13Mega Worth it for the Bestiaries alone, those are packed with adventure hooks, options, and other ways to actually use the critters in your campaign as more than just a stat block in an encounter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:28
|
|
|
gtrmp posted:So they're releasing the SRD under Creative Commons... minus the entirety of the sections describing races, classes, spells, monsters and magic items. If you're trying to do a Pathfinder or retroclone it's more of a problem. Anyone in that position is at least going to be able to use ORC and whatever goes into SRDs under that, and the Creative Commons stuff, and would probably be able to arrive at something serviceable, but it feels like it would be a harder task to make new clones after this. (Then again, how many more clones do we need? We'll look back at Old School Essentials as being the pinnacle of that movement.) Kurieg posted:Section 9.d also provides an escape clause for them to invalidate their entire (perpetual) document should they so choose. My general feeling on this iteration: it's an improvement. With respect to the VTT stuff, there's some wrangling to be done. Fog of war I could argue for being legit because it'd be possible for me to, say, only draw a map a bit at a time on the tabletop (or toss a blanket over my preprinted map). AoEs, likewise, I could do with simple templates or tape measures. Being precise about what they are allowed to modiify helps. Putting some stuff into Creative Commons is a classy move which they didn't have to do. It's still not useful for people who'd used 1.0a to set up a licensing regime for theirown games, because it still deauthorises that. But ORC's going to have those people covered - and Wizards will probably look at third parties putting out their own full-fledged games moving away from the OGL space and think "Good, job done". I think it's still less attractive than the 1.0a - in particular, it looks to me like it pretty much purges the body of Open Content developed under that through deauthorisation and sets up a new 1.2 pool of Open Content consisting of the 5.1 SRD as its initial seed. But I now think you would not be a total fool to use 1.2 if you wanted to do D&D stuff and draw on the bits of the SRD that aren't CC, and the CC bit means that it'd be possible to make at least some content which doesn't need the OGL at all. If your ambition is to make your own competing RPG, I would advise against using this, and I don't think that is going to change. I also think the way they have set this up means that if the deauthorisation idea gets challenged in court or they use - or the pressure prompts them to concede the point and say "fine, but no 1D&D innovations are going to come out under 1.0a, if you want access to our new poo poo you will need to use 1.2" - then it won't be a disaster for them. The biggest problem I have with it is the content policy, because whilst I agree that all the content they cite in it is lovely and bad and has no place in the hobby, I don't trust them to be the sole arbiter of it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:33
|
|
|
Warthur posted:Yeah, it makes it burdensome to rewrite that stuff, though equally I don't think it's a dealbreaker if you're writing a scenario because you can just put in page references to the SRD if you use that stuff, or provide bespoke content. So another thought and question after reading this. Does that mean since there are no species or classes in the new CC SRD you would not be able to make any commercial subclasses or flavors for like elves or dwarves or whatever? Like could you make a new domain for cleric for example for your own campaign and publish it?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:35
|
|
|
I also notice they added a "governing jurisdiction" clause, which I think is genuinely helpful. These are pretty standard, it was always weird that 1.0a didn't have one, and it arguably makes things easier for people - sure, they've picked the legal venue they probably think is going to be best for them in most cases, but at least now you know under what law a case might be heard, so you can have a better idea of what laws apply. (A lot of the wrangling about 1.0a is made much more complicated because different jurisdictions may interpret the terms of the licence in different ways depending on their case law and precedent.)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:37
|
|
|
Vire posted:So another thought and question after reading this. Does that mean since there are no species or classes in the new CC SRD you would not be able to make any commercial subclasses or flavors for like elves or dwarves or whatever? Like could you make a new domain for cleric for example for your own campaign and publish it? A good point for feedback to Wizards, but it looks to me like you can make your own bespoke species and classes and spells just fine, you just can't copy-paste theirs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 15:24 |
|
|
Oooh wait, hold on. The severability clause is worse than I thought because it gives Wizards the option of saying "Actually, now that that bit has been ruled unenforceable we don't like this any more, so we're killing the whole thing". That's unacceptable - it means that publisher A could get turbofucked because publisher B won a case against Wizards, even if publisher A had nothing to do with the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2023 23:41
|
|