SmiteWorks OGL 1.2 Discussion

[Voctor]

You sound like a lawyer.

If so, are you saying that the stuff on page 2 should be moved to another location or that it doesn't apply?

Generally that is how it works. Anything outside the contract itself isn't legally binding. Case in point - them de-authorizing 1.0 even though they wrote an FAQ that says that they can't. The FAQ isn't the contract, so you can take them to court over lying about the contract but not for breach of contract.

[Ram Tyr]

Oh, please... your flattery will get you nowhere.

*The contents of this post have disintegrated. There is nothing to see here.*

[Myrdin Potter]

Doug is quite calm while discussing the gun aimed at he and his team's head to limit their ability to augment their core product to compete.

[KelticOwl]

I'm not a fan of how they worded the irrevocability in 2 . Licenses. The way that it reads it's suggests that WoTC can't remove content from the license, such as withdraw the Elf Class from OGL 1.2, but it is not worded in a way that makes the license itself unrevocable down the road if WoTC wanted to change it again. (I'm more familiar with Tax Law, not IP so these may have different definitions and I'm happy to defer to the experts). They definitely included so they could say "See See we used the word you like."

Overall, it's a step in the right direction but it still does contain very concerning things, the threshold for proving damages is near impossible to meet (which basically means you'll have little recourse if any) unless you prove their intention. Also I'm not familiar enough with Washington Law, but there may also be limits on those damages.

As far as the VTT, I'm not interested in exposing my players to whatever monetization scheme they've cooked up. I'm happy to play ORC games here, and avoid OneD&D all together.

Thanks for creating an awesome space

[ddavison]

Well, if you are eager to deauthorize OGL1.0a, I would be sure to talk about the deauthorization language while discussing OGL1.2. If you want the parties to the OGL1.2 to agree in this license to the deauthorization it needs to be stated in OGL1.2. (Not in the introductory text... not in the place where they give you images referred to in the OGL1.2.)

If you are not yourself interested in deauthorizing OGL1.0a, then there is a question of strategy (which a lawyer with experience in this kind of litigation might give advice on) concerning whether letting them say they deauthorize OGL1.0a matters to you. Whether your agreeing to the deauthorization in a subsequent license agreement will bear weight on the outcome of litigation about whether OGL1.0a can be deauthorized, etc.

Edit: sorry meant to reply to @ddavison

Is the "You" meant for me or for WOTC? I think the best thing is NOT to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. I'm just being practical and guessing that WOTC is determined to replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.2. I'm just working to make that as palatable as possible. I did also see a comment from WOTC about expanding OGL 1.2 to cover other, previous SRD documents.

My assumption is that other publishers will be able to release products under a new license (not OGL 1.0a or OGL 1.2) where they would have previously released under OGL 1.0a. Announcement of the Open RPG Creative License (ORC) and others seems to point to this as a common thought among publishers and content creators. That could certainly be tested in court, but I think those parties would prevail.

Doug is quite calm while discussing the gun aimed at he and his team's head to limit their ability to augment their core product to compete.

I'm confident it will be rewritten. If not, we'll deal with it at that time.

[Voctor]

Is the "You" meant for me or for WOTC? I think the best thing is NOT to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. I'm just being practical and guessing that WOTC is determined to replace OGL 1.0a with OGL 1.2. I'm just working to make that as palatable as possible. I did also see a comment from WOTC about expanding OGL 1.2 to cover other, previous SRD documents.

My assumption is that other publishers will be able to release products under a new license (not OGL 1.0a or OGL 1.2) where they would have previously released under OGL 1.0a. Announcement of the Open RPG Creative License (ORC) and others seems to point to this as a common thought among publishers and content creators. That could certainly be tested in court, but I think those parties would prevail.



I'm confident it will be rewritten. If not, we'll deal with it at that time.

From what they've said, you couldn't make a new class for 3rd edition. The 3e SRD would not be in this new OGL or the ORC, and the old OGL would no longer be usable. Basically, 3e and 5e become closed game systems (at least as much as a game system can be closed within the limits of copyright law) and any new 3rd party D&D content must only be for the 5.1 SRD. Since 5.1 is somewhat backward compatible to 5.0 you could probably make 5.1 content that can still be used by people playing 5.0, but it's a bit awkward. 3e and 3.5e would just be dead unless someone wants to enter the legal arena where they challenge WoTC over what parts of the rules they can and can't protect.

Edit - By extension you probably couldn't do new content for Pathfinder 1 since it's based on the 3.5 SRD.

[ddavison]

3e and 3.5e would just be dead unless someone wants to enter the legal arena where they challenge WoTC over what parts of the rules they can and can't protect.

Edit - By extension you probably couldn't do new content for Pathfinder 1 since it's based on the 3.5 SRD.

Paizo announced they are creating their own licensed called the Open RPG Creative License (ORC), so I think they are comfortable in the legal arena for it. There are a lot of other companies on board with that as well, including Fantasy Grounds.

[Voctor]

Paizo announced they are creating their own licensed called the Open RPG Creative License (ORC), so I think they are comfortable in the legal arena for it. There are a lot of other companies on board with that as well, including Fantasy Grounds.

Paizo can put Pathfinder 2 into the ORC because it does not use anything from a WoTC SRD. They cannot do the same thing with Pathfinder 1, because it does use WoTC content that they don't own and could only use through the OGL 1.0a.

[ddavison]

Paizo can put Pathfinder 2 into the ORC because it does not use anything from a WoTC SRD. They cannot do the same thing with Pathfinder 1, because it does use WoTC content that they don't own and could only use through the OGL 1.0a.

Do you have some examples of this? The PF 1E Core Rules basically redefined all the base classes, spells, feats, etc. from what I recall.

[Voctor]

Do you have some examples of this? The PF 1E Core Rules basically redefined all the base classes, spells, feats, etc. from what I recall.

From the Pathfinder 1 rules:

Dazed: The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed
creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.
A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.


From the 3.5 SRD:
Dazed
The creature is unable to act normally. A dazed creature can take no actions, but has no penalty to AC.

A dazed condition typically lasts 1 round.

This exact 1 to 1 reproduction of the SRD text is what the OGL allows. Without it, this is copyright infringement.