|
Kestral posted:If this is actually what he's doing, then he deserves even more scorn heaped on him than if it were an earnest but misguided effort. Get your engagement metrics up through honest design work, or stay quiet and let the grown-ups run the show. lmao this is a post about a guy not making fantasy elf games the right way
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
Kalman posted:See my prior post in the thread: they understand it just fine, you’re missing the difference between the offered license and accepted license. They’re only deauthorizing the first of the two. You seem to be missing the point. There is nothing in the existing OGL 1.0a that gives anyone the right to distribute material without an authorised license. That's the whole point of the pushback on whether they can deauthorise. But if they _can_ deauthorise, that doesn't give them the right to change the terms of the OGL 1.0a to then allow existing material to continue to be distributed (but not copied or modified). It's trying to change the existing license and give themselves rights it never granted them and that no one had agreed to. It's schroedinger's license, where it is both deauthorised, but existing produce is still licensed, to a license that is no longer valid.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:12
|
|
|
PST posted:Yeah whether they can deauthorise or not, they absolutely cannot change the terms of an existing license. And this really looks like they just don't understand it at all. Oh, they understand, they just want the old OGL to go away. And they've been doing fuckery of this sort for a while now, it turns out, even before Goldner died: https://twitter.com/Appelcline/status/1616200690669608960?s=20&t=ajK1cQLgSnT4fSt4fdv3cw You'll have to click thru for the whole thread. Needless to say, Hasbro wanting to renege contracts has been a going Thing for years now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:15
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Oh, they understand, they just want the old OGL to go away. And they've been doing fuckery of this sort for a while now, it turns out, even before Goldner died: They managed to piss off their house historian? Also LOL at "RPG historian, blockchain tech writer, tabletop gamer."
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:27
|
|
|
PST posted:You seem to be missing the point. There is nothing in the existing OGL 1.0a that gives anyone the right to distribute material without an authorised license. That's the whole point of the pushback on whether they can deauthorise. There are two things involved here, both with the word "license". The pushback is from people who don't understand that. There's the OGL text which offers people the ability to obtain a license to the material. Specifically, look at clause 4, and the words I've bolded: "4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." Notice how some of them are capitalized and some are not? That's not an error, it's intentional, and meaningful here. Specifically, the capital-L License is the offer to grant the lowercase-L license. Wizards is deauthorizing the License; you can no longer agree to use that License. They are not, nor are they trying to, deauthorize the licenses granted under the terms of the License.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:28
|
|
|
Farg posted:lmao this is a post about a guy not making fantasy elf games the right way How dare someone care about, checks notes, what this entire subforum is about 
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:33
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Also LOL at "RPG historian, blockchain tech writer, tabletop gamer." Yeah, that bio is pretty  , but also, yes. They managed to piss off an otherwise loyal historian of the product.Kalman posted:"4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." And yes, this is likely the legal play they want to make (IANAL, as ever). They want to say the License is de-authorized, and thus if someone updates or tries to sell a new product with any material from the old 1.0a OGL (like, say, a DLC to a popular video game that uses rules and previously-granted IP under the OGL, like say, type-names of supernatural entities) they'll be in license violation and Wizards can sue them into oblivion. This will spark a big legal battle over whether the License can be de-authorized in this way, and I think it's clear that Hasbro's legal counsel thinks it can (and said counsel sounds like a very smart person), so it'd come down to that and who's willing to fight over it and how.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:37
|
|
|
SpaceDrake posted:Yeah, that bio is pretty And in an industry that's niche at best and minuscule at most, where the biggest company also has the backing of a far larger company, that's a stand not many can afford to make.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:44
|
|
|
They think they can bully their way through the ambiguity. Maybe they can. Maybe it'll backfire hilariously. The future is full of promise.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:46
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They think they can bully their way through the ambiguity. Maybe they can. Maybe it'll backfire hilariously. The future is full of promise. They may be able to, if everyone decides to just hitch their wagon on the ORC instead and leave the OGL for diehards. Can't be forced to fight if nobody bothers in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:56
|
|
|
Might be a pyrrhic victory.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 04:58
|
|
|
The Bee posted:They may be able to, if everyone decides to just hitch their wagon on the ORC instead and leave the OGL for diehards. Can't be forced to fight if nobody bothers in the first place. Is that even needed. I don't think there is anything stopping people from working on games in both the ORC and OGL. I can easily see a bunch of the Companies working with ORC, use the OGL as well if they think it will profit them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:There are two things involved here, both with the word "license". The pushback is from people who don't understand that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:OGL licensees don’t have the right to sublicense Wizards’ copyrighted works, though, even if they’re properly licensed. But sublicensing is functionally baked into the OGL 1.0a, isn't it? Wizards can say "nobody can accept the OGL 1.0a license from us anymore", but if, say, the existing license used by d20srd.org is intact, that license as offered by d20srd.org includes all the stuff that was offered to d20srd.org by Wizards.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:10
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:They think they can bully their way through the ambiguity. Maybe they can. Maybe it'll backfire hilariously. The future is full of promise. I predict most of the people upset have already caved and gone 100% back in.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:19
|
|
|
Roadie posted:But sublicensing is functionally baked into the OGL 1.0a, isn't it? Wizards can say "nobody can accept the OGL 1.0a license from us anymore", but if, say, the existing license used by d20srd.org is intact, that license as offered by d20srd.org includes all the stuff that was offered to d20srd.org by Wizards. No. The license d20srd.org is using is Wizard's OGL 1.0a, so if Wizards deauthorizes it, d20srd.org can't offer anything anymore. EDIT: This is why one of the big reactions to non-D&D games using the OGL for their license was 'what the gently caress were you smoking?!' Tsilkani fucked around with this message at 05:30 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:26
|
|
|
kingcom posted:I predict most of the people upset have already caved and gone 100% back in. 3PP? Hell no. Every single third party publisher has spent the past couple weeks wondering if their livelihood was about to be hosed up to hell, and they've discovered that the perfidious entity that has messed with them is now trying to worm a clause in that lets them unilaterally declare that if your product - or your private behavior! - qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" they get to kill it. Note that they "have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action". It was a huge diarrhea dogshit dump before, but it's still dogshit now. Nobody's signing that with the company that did this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 05:30
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:By this reading, Paizo, Kobold Press, etc, can just infinitely publish new material under 1.0a, since they have a perpetual license. Indeed, anybody who used 1.0a, even somebody who did it just now, can use OGL 1.0a perpetually. Is this what ultimately brings in a court case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 06:53
|
|
|
WhebnWizards deauthorizes the License, nobody can point to the License to grant a license to their Content.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 07:04
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:Customers? Sure. Never bet against consumers pathetically cucking themselves. We've got big industry names coming up with revolutionary ideas such as 'hmm instead of strength, lets call it stronkth'. I expect all of this to disappear and either a new generation of 3PP pumping out nothing but dnd content or many of them to roll back when they find out how much damage they personally have done to the indie space. The one exception I think is that Pathfinder 2e will pick up a gathering of 3rd party devs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 07:21
|
|
|
w00tmonger posted:Is this what ultimately brings in a court case? The difference between the two viewpoints? Yes, Wizards says "no new 1.0a content evers" and this guy is saying "nuh uh" and if a company does the same it will go to court if both parties are sufficiently stubborn about it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 08:02
|
|
|
For those who are confused as to how the OGL works: There's only one License that grants license to the content in the Open Gaming Content blob. When that License goes, nobody can license the entire blob of Content at once any more but any licensed content made with that Content remains valid, because you had the license to use it at the time according to the License. Individual rights holders are still free to license their own content out, but you'd have to negotiate that one piece of content at a time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 08:36
|
|
|
Cycloneman posted:By this reading, Paizo, Kobold Press, etc, can just infinitely publish new material under 1.0a, since they have a perpetual license. Indeed, anybody who used 1.0a, even somebody who did it just now, can use OGL 1.0a perpetually. If I have a yard sale and put up a sign saying "Everything on this yard $5," that defines the terms of an agreement anyone can participate in without having to identify parties and negotiate terms, considerations and definitions. It's an open contract as in "I have announced this contract which anyone else may accept." That doesn't mean that the following weekend, my neighbour can come along and demand I sell my mower for $5. You can retract open offers, which is what they're trying to do by deauthorising it going forward. This doesn't mean you can't sell products that already have a 1.0a agreement. They've reiterated that if you currently have a 1.0a product, you can keep selling the 1.0a product, and it's kind of frustrating to see this keep getting brought up. They're just not going to authorise any new 1.0a contracts going forward. The reason they're using the word 'deauthorise' is because clause 9 of 1.0a says that anyone may use an authorised version in perpetuity. They're saying that from a certain date they will deauthorise it. People without any familiarity with legal terminology panicked and thought thos meant old contracts would not be valid any more. They are. The offer of new contracts is just being deauthorised. Essentially, taking down the 'yard sale' sign. The stuff you bought for $5 last week is still yours because that was the open offer you agreed to at the time. You just can't use that offer to buy stuff on the lawn for $5 any more. Where it gets complex is in the in-perpetuity part. It doesn't mean that anyone who agreed to a 1.0a contract in the past can extend it to new products in the future (because that offer of those terms is no longer open), so where does that leave someone like Pathfinder who published under 1.0a? It could be interpreted that any new content would need to be under 1.1 or 2 or whatever, because the offer that 1.0a represents has been deauthorised, i.e. they took the yard sale sign down. Is new pathfinder content an extension of the existing 1.0a contract, or does it require 1.1, which when initially announced would have hosed Paizo into paying royalties? Again, like so many people in this thread, not a lawyer, and fully acknowledging that arguing the points of law here and pretending it's QED does not take into account how statute law often makes weird decisions around these ambiguities. I am not saying this is how the law is, I'm trying to lay down the underlying theories that are important to understanding how this works. The biggest issue still seems to be the subclauses that say 'we can change this contract retroactively' because to sign up to a contract like that requires a lot of trust, and Hasbro have absolutely shattered that trust.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 09:53
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Wizards is deauthorizing the License; you can no longer agree to use that License. They are not, nor are they trying to, deauthorize the licenses granted under the terms of the License. They are, though. They want people who already accepted the License and thus received a license to no longer be able to use the license they have to publish materials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:07
|
|
|
So... can I publish a nearly blank page as a PDF, or one filled with some generic D20 wank, with the 1.0a OGL attached today, and then "errata" it years later with a full product into it? I mean, I published my "product" in time, right? So I can also publish a couple of hundred of them, issue errata when I need to, and then crank up the price from $0,01 to a real market-conforming price. All the while avoiding using the new license. Ok ok. So the above is obviously just petty trolling. But, is there any consequence for errata? Can someone update an older product and still fall under the old provisions?
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:12
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:It could be interpreted that any new content would need to be under 1.1 or 2 or whatever, because the offer that 1.0a represents has been deauthorised, i.e. they took the yard sale sign down. Is new pathfinder content an extension of the existing 1.0a contract, or does it require 1.1, which when initially announced would have hosed Paizo into paying royalties? First edition OGL 1.1 would maybe have made things rough for any third party still publishing Pathfinder 1 stuff though, if they hit the royalty threshold. However, all Pathfinder 2 stuff, including third party PF2 stuff under PF2 OGL1.0a, is wholly separated from whatever WotC OGL mess happens because WotC is not the licensor nor the owner of any of the relevant copyrightable material. Suzera fucked around with this message at 11:16 on Jan 20, 2023 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:36
|
|
|
According to Wizard's lawyers, no. According to actual case law? I have no idea if this has ever been argued since errata is intended to 'correct' printing errors and editing mistakes and whether that would fall afoul of the idea it's a new product or not has probably never been tested. The situation you're describing would definitely get you a Cease and Desist order though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:37
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:They are, though. They want people who already accepted the License and thus received a license to no longer be able to use the license they have to publish materials.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 10:51
|
|
|
All of this is exacerbated by the fact that Wizards never specified which jurisdiction's laws the OGL 1.0a was covered by, which means that the result of a case could end up being strikingly different depending on where it ends up after the wrangles over jurisdiction cease.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:00
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/mattcolville/status/1616219497534484485/photo/1 I think it's adorable that Matt finally discovered the FFG Star Wars game and loves it, but looking at that sheet it looks like he's just making a fantasy version of that game. Ability scores look like they're pretty much the same as how FFGSW handles them, "Ability Dice", opposed checks, "Chaos dice" being pretty much an enhanced version of a Setback/Threat die (which he's mentioned in like every single livestream this week, he loves it so much). Mind you I'm not really saying any of this is necessarily bad, but it very much feels like cargo culting the FFG mechanics just because it's the new hotness for Matt.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:22
|
|
|
He's just getting weird with it now: https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1616384573121925121?t=ETK147TzGevbYJuAF3sPMQ&s=19
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:41
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:https://twitter.com/DnD_Shorts/status/1616384573121925121?t=ETK147TzGevbYJuAF3sPMQ&s=19 Don't threaten us with a good time.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:48
|
|
|
Drone posted:https://twitter.com/mattcolville/status/1616219497534484485/photo/1 I wouldn't mind a version of Genesys with fewer special snowflake dice, tbh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:53
|
|
|
Suzera posted:However, all Pathfinder 2 stuff, including third party PF2 stuff under PF2 OGL1.0a, is wholly separated from whatever WotC OGL mess happens because WotC is not the licensor nor the owner of any of the relevant copyrightable material. But WotC still can't force Paizo to use or not use any particular license agreement for their PF2 publications. And since Paizo seems to be making their own OGL with blackjack and hookers this possibility seems moot at the moment anyway with regard to Pathfinder 2 (and I guess Starfinder reading over the Paizo press release too). For now they're just going to print new copies of PF2 and Starfinder with no OGL until ORC is ready.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:58
|
|
|
Megazver posted:I wouldn't mind a version of Genesys with fewer special snowflake dice, tbh. I'm currently playing a Terrinoth campaign. It's fun!
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 11:59
|
|
|
Suzera posted:After a double check of the original OGL1.0a, this is maybe slightly too strong. It seems like as written Wizards could have at least something resembling a case to null the PF2 OGL agreement between Paizo and whatever third party using Paizo's content by deauthorizing the license, since the language about authorization is in the same clause as the ONE bit that specifies Wizards as a company specifically. It's not entirely clear/explicit in the text whether the content owner (Paizo here for PF2 SRD source materials) or the owner of the license text (Wizards) is the authorizer of a specific form of the license. That's probably the best option, better to cut off the OGL now and leave third parties out to dry than continue with a license that you don't control and don't need. Hopefully for those 3pp for Pathfinder, assuming they exist, they can cut some kind of deal with Paizo until ORC is ready.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 12:02
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:That's probably the best option, better to cut off the OGL now and leave third parties out to dry than continue with a license that you don't control and don't need. Hopefully for those 3pp for Pathfinder, assuming they exist, they can cut some kind of deal with Paizo until ORC is ready.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 12:12
|
|
|
Suzera posted:Unless I'm mistaken, Paizo doesn't make any new 3.5e WotC SRD reliant stuff anymore, nor for any WotC owned IP. Everything new for years now is (as far as I know) all Pathfinder 2, which is their own creation completely distinct from WotC property. Pathfinder 2 has been using OGL, but only because they use it to allow other third parties to use Paizo's PF2 SRD, not because they're beholden to WotC with it in any way. The license-issuing party in PF2's version of the OGL 1.0a is Paizo, not WotC. The core rulebooks of Pathfinder 2e are licensed under the OGL.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
Bobby Deluxe posted:That's not how that works. The relevant concept in law is that of an open contract, which I only vaguely remember from a British law a-level about 25 years ago. quote: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.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 13:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:29 |
|
|
Lamuella posted:The core rulebooks of Pathfinder 2e are licensed under the OGL. Yes, but they generally don't *need* to be. Or at least Paizo thinks so. They used the OGL because they wanted to allow people to use their stuff openly. My general standing is still most people using the OGL didn't actually need to use it, they were just using it out of both habit and as an effortless CYA. Paizo said they are going to not be publishing anything under the OGL anymore after like June or whatever they don't have in the hopper now. And when the ORC is completed everything is getting published under that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2023 13:36
|
|
