Changes to OGL and Effect on Paizo / other OGL companies

[breithauptclan]

Ellias Aubec wrote:

Just a thought, but the 1.0a OGL said you could use any version of it right? I may be misunderstanding something, but if WOTC does manage to deuathorised 1.0a, doesn't 1.0 still then exist to be used?

I'm sure I must be missing something if everyone seems to have not mentioned this.

That is certainly the argument that is going to be made in court if Wizards takes exception to people continuing to publish PF1 add-ons under OGL 1.0 or 1.0a.

What does work - because the GPL does this too - is to not allow content published under newer versions to be back-released to older versions. So if Wizards wants to write into OGL 2 that you can't use content licensed under OGL 2 to create derivative content and publish it using the OGL 1.0a license, that will probably hold up.

[UnArcaneElection]

Earlier, I wrote:

{. . .} NPR has covered D&D before (I'm listening now), so they could potentially end up covering the OGH 1.1/2.0 situation.

As I type, I just finished hearing a (admittedly not very thorough) report about this on WBUR's/NPR's Here and Now.

[Aotrscommander]

necromental wrote:

Do you have it available? I'm interested

Sort of? It's not, like up on a website or anything, but it would be emailable (though a check and quick run up suggests a zip file is about 16.5 meg with the word files. A mate converts it to PDF and kindle (I mean, I could do the former if I could be arsed), but that's not quite up to date (as there have been a few more little passes as I've been finalising the next pass for the next campaign starting next week.) Drive link might be better than email direct (though I think under the circumstances you'll forgive me if I don't do a completely open one, so PM or email... (as much as anything I try and keep my Drive clear for work stuff!)

Should be noted that it still relies on having some 3.5 books (notably PHB, DMG, PHBII, SpC, ToB, XPH, CompPsi) as I haven't like, re-written/copied up the *entire* of 3.5 et al, just very large chunks.

There are also still some low-impact areas not done exhaustively, that I tackle on a case-by-case basis as need arises. Only a few races, still some domains to be updated (in the final tab of the SpellCrossReferencePrime spreadsheet), only a handful of PrCs, stuff like that. There is a generic bestiary, but that's bascally just a compilation of statblocks that gets updated as I find a monster I haven't used yet. (The Summon Bestiary, on the other hand, has a complete list of everything that is summonable by spell or power in 3.A.) I also need to do a proper index of the witch patrons (I just couldn't be arsed at the time) and we haven't had anyone play one yet, so that's not been a big priority.

(I may eventually add Path of War stuff too, but that would require a complete overhaul of the Tome of Battle disciplines AND, more pertiently, doing loads of new cards and re-printing the old ones and so it'd be a big effort I haven't felt the need to undertake yet.)

But all the classes, feats, spells, powers, equipment and combat stuff is all "done", short of further expansion and errata and such.

[Jerdane]

breithauptclan wrote:

Ellias Aubec wrote:

Just a thought, but the 1.0a OGL said you could use any version of it right? I may be misunderstanding something, but if WOTC does manage to deuathorised 1.0a, doesn't 1.0 still then exist to be used?

I'm sure I must be missing something if everyone seems to have not mentioned this.

That is certainly the argument that is going to be made in court if Wizards takes exception to people continuing to publish PF1 add-ons under OGL 1.0 or 1.0a.

What does work - because the GPL does this too - is to not allow content published under newer versions to be back-released to older versions. So if Wizards wants to write into OGL 2 that you can't use content licensed under OGL 2 to create derivative content and publish it using the OGL 1.0a license, that will probably hold up.

IIRC the OGL states that you can use any "authorized license". If (and that's one heck of an "if") Wizards can convince a judge that they have the right to deauthorize the original OGL, then presumably we couldn't use it anymore.

[breithauptclan]

Yes, that is the big fear that everyone has about this 'deauthorization' clause in the draft versions of OGL 2.

But that is also the opposite direction from what I am trying to mention.

I think it is perfectly legally reasonable (though it may still be a socially bad plan) for OGL 2 to have a restriction on not allowing OGL 2 content to be used and distributed in products published under an OGL 1.0a license. So D&D6e can't be used by the community if they don't want to sign up for OGL 2.

That wouldn't affect anything released under OGL 1.0a - the language of that license would still allow people to use 'any version' as it currently does. So people could continue to release PF1 or D&D3.5 content under OGL 1.0a.

It just means that you couldn't create D&D6e add-on products using OGL 1.0a.

And like I mentioned, GPL already does this. GPL 3 is not compatible with GPL 2. And some of the GPL 2 products (most notably the Linux kernel itself) specify that they can only be redistributed under the GPL 2 license - not any later version.

That last part is not something that OGL 1.0a could do because it does allow 'any authorized version' in its language - so it couldn't do the forward license version upgrade prevention that GPL 2 can. If someone wants to create a D&D3.5 module under OGL 2 license, they certainly could do so.

But OGL 2 probably can do the backward license version downgrade prevention that GPL 3 does - and prevent D&D6e modules from being published under OGL 1.0a.

[thejeff]

breithauptclan wrote:

Yes, that is the big fear that everyone has about this 'deauthorization' clause in the draft versions of OGL 2.

But that is also the opposite direction from what I am trying to mention.

I think it is perfectly legally reasonable (though it may still be a socially bad plan) for OGL 2 to have a restriction on not allowing OGL 2 content to be used and distributed in products published under an OGL 1.0a license. So D&D6e can't be used by the community if they don't want to sign up for OGL 2.

That wouldn't affect anything released under OGL 1.0a - the language of that license would still allow people to use 'any version' as it currently does. So people could continue to release PF1 or D&D3.5 content under OGL 1.0a.

It just means that you couldn't create D&D6e add-on products using OGL 1.0a.

And like I mentioned, GPL already does this. GPL 3 is not compatible with GPL 2. And some of the GPL 2 products (most notably the Linux kernel itself) specify that they can only be redistributed under the GPL 2 license - not any later version.

That last part is not something that OGL 1.0a could do because it does allow 'any authorized version' in its language - so it couldn't do the forward license version upgrade prevention that GPL 2 can. If someone wants to create a D&D3.5 module under OGL 2 license, they certainly could do so.

But OGL 2 probably can do the backward license version downgrade prevention that GPL 3 does - and prevent D&D6e modules from being published under OGL 1.0a.

And if that was all they were doing - there would be annoyance, but it wouldn't be an existential threat.

Though I don't think they can go quite that far even. They can prevent you from using the 6e SRD except under the new license, but especially if 6e isn't too different from 5e, that doesn't mean that you won't be able to use the OGL 1.0a 5e SRD to create content that's essentially 6e compatible.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

All licensing agreements are contracts because there is the licensor issuing the license (and would be automatically assumed to agree with the terms of the agreement) and a party agreeing to the terms of the license.

If the licensor is a third-party that does not use WotC's content that is product identity, WotC lacks privity of contract with third party content developers/publishers for non-WotC SRDs. Third-party content developer/publishers making content for Pathfinder or Starfinder is contractully licensed by Paizo not WotC. They are bound to the license as granted by Paizo. WotC lacks the privity (lack of being a party to contract) with Paizo's licensees. They at most can require Paizo to discontinue using the OGL 1.0a license to license third-party content developers/publishers. Then Paizo would just have to replace the license and require their licensees to shift to the new license. Paizo is already taking steps in that direction. Paizo could establish a temporary license that will be replaced by the final ORC license in order to give time for the ORC license to be developed. The temporary license would replace the OGL. I say this because WotC is the copyright owner of the OGL license text. If WotC were to push the issue like this, they could be sued for equitable harm caused. They can do this, legally, but it can cost them.

What WotC licensed as open game content is for the most part, that I can tell, are stuff that is statutorily public domain under the U.S. copyright law because it is stuff that can't be copyrighted.

[EltonJ]

Game rules cannot be copyrighted. That was one of the reasons why they made the OGL and the SRD in the first place.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

EltonJ wrote:

Game rules cannot be copyrighted. That was one of the reasons why they made the OGL and the SRD in the first place.

You would violate copyright if you made an exact duplication of the copyrighted text of the game rules as written or so close that it is the same text and expression. Copying other stuff in a game's core rulebook would violate copyrights as well. However, it doesn't mean you can't take the rules and incorporate it into your own game's core rule book (if you make a new RPG game.

[AceofMoxen]

The above is correct, but I've seen lawyers say it comes up so rarely that the lines are not clearly defined.

[The Raven Black]

Ezekieru wrote:

Ellias Aubec wrote:

Just a thought, but the 1.0a OGL said you could use any version of it right? I may be misunderstanding something, but if WOTC does manage to deuathorised 1.0a, doesn't 1.0 still then exist to be used?

I'm sure I must be missing something if everyone seems to have not mentioned this.

That's something that would need to be found out in court, since the OGL is more of a "gentlemen's agreement not to sue" and not a real legal document. WotC would likely threaten legal action against those who cannot financially afford to, but thankfully Paizo has said they're willing to fight WotC in court, so maybe we'll find out!

2 things :

1. I think it is EXTREMELY unlikely WotC would ever go after a company that makes little profit. What would the incentive be compared to the legal costs and the risk of having a judge decide that they cannot legally deauthorize OGL1 (aka precedent) ?

2. Paiso did say they're willing to fight WotC in court. They did not say they would do this if WotC attacked some other company. So, I read it as a willingness to fight in court if WotC attacks Paizo.

[Dancing Wind]

The Raven Black wrote:

What would the incentive be compared to the legal costs and the risk of having a judge decide that they cannot legally deauthorize OGL1 (aka precedent) ?

It all depends on Hasbro's lawyers' risk assessment.

If they think it's highly likely that they can get the small company to cave, and thus set a precedent, they don't need it to be a high-profit company.
Hasbro, so far, seems incredibly confident that they'll win on the 'revoke/deauthorize/withdraw' issue in court. Again, that's a risk assement.

You think that the risk is high that a judge/jury would rule against them. They may think that the risk is low that a judge/jury would rule against them.

The incentive is winning, not the profits of the small company.

Quote:

2. Paiso did say they're willing to fight WotC in court. They did not say they would do this if WotC attacked some other company. So, I read it as a willingness to fight in court if WotC attacks Paizo.

Again, your assumptions about Paizo's plans may not coincide with Paizo's actual plans. And Paizo may not have to fund such a defense alone. The ORC horde may very well help pay for a defense for the entire horde, even if the attack is on a single member.

[PossibleCabbage]

AceofMoxen wrote:

The above is correct, but I've seen lawyers say it comes up so rarely that the lines are not clearly defined.

I mean, Hasbro owns Scrabble and they did not sue the "Words With Friends" people even thought it's the same game with a slightly altered board and different point values for letters.

And that seems to be a clearly better case than "your game also has a fighter that has a power attack feat."

[Azothath]

this is an issue between companies about IP, derivative IP, and thus money (like 25% of $750000). There are (some) corporations of means involved thus they will wind up in civil court over the issue. Like many business issues if one side seems to prevail it will bring the others to the negotiation table but it seems a settlement would only benefit only one corporation at this point in time. Alas, business is business. Often the business with cash to spend can force its competitors to the negotiation table.

Until that time there's a lot of posturing and corporations talking to their legal consul. At least Hasbro has tipped its hand and may be testing the waters.

Frankly I was surprised that the DnD OGL was included on PF2 products and that Paizo didn't create it's own OGL for PF2 at the time and confront any Derivative Dragons with Paperwork Paladins.

[Aotrscommander]

I believe this video basically sums it up, really.

A Message From WotC About OGL*

*Curtesy of Going Rogue.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

AceofMoxen wrote:

The above is correct, but I've seen lawyers say it comes up so rarely that the lines are not clearly defined.

They do happen quite a bit in federal courts where IP issues have jurisdiction. However, a lot of cases are not very well known or at all publicized outside those most likely to here to hear of the cases. Example: The Hyperion Entertainment / Amiga, Inc. lawsuits. If you are into the Amiga computers and that operating system, you may heard of these cases in the past 20 or so years. Even these cases, sets new or affirms existing precedence for future cases on the issued addressed in those cases.

Even then, it's not always clearly defined.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

Aotrscommander wrote:

I believe this video basically sums it up, really.

A Message From WotC About OGL*

*Curtesy of Going Rogue.

Thank you for the humor. Only when will Microsoft be as candid and honest when they give you the blue screen of death or when they are injecting your computer with problems through their engineered backdoor.

[Raynulf]

Aotrscommander wrote:

I believe this video basically sums it up, really.

A Message From WotC About OGL*

*Curtesy of Going Rogue.

Beat me to it!

Youtube has been insisting all morning (timezones) that I should be watching that... and in this case I agree. Very well done.

[Anguish]

It's rare I'll click on random video links, but thanks for that one.

It was:
a} funny
b} depressing
c} both <<< this one
d} none of the above

[UnArcaneElection]

Dragon Nexus Games wrote:

Aotrscommander wrote:

I believe this video basically sums it up, really.

A Message From WotC About OGL*

*Curtesy of Going Rogue.

Thank you for the humor. Only when will Microsoft be as candid and honest when they give you the blue screen of death or when they are injecting your computer with problems through their engineered backdoor.

Microsoft candid or honest? I still remember their End User License Agreement from the late 1990s that wouldn't even let you run benchmarks on their products. I don't know if they still have that buried somewhere in their infernal contracts, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's actually still in there and I just missed it.

[12Seal]

An IP and copyright lawyer's take on OGL 1.2

And my attempt to link it failed. Wrong code, :P

[Dragon Nexus Games]

The line between what is not copyrightable and what is copyrightable expression. There is a line but you have to assess it with each work. Knowing exactly where that is or more importantly, how the judge or jury of the court will determine, that no one knows. This is how most IP cases which are civil law disputes are addressed and more seldom, being criminal cases with criminal level charges being at issue.

When WotC expresses the game mechanic of D&D, its just game mechanics within the larger books about core rules, character sheet creation, etc. A few mere words or pure extraction of the game mechanics from that of the rest of the expressed work. That generally means, stripping pictorial imagery, stripping away custom proprietary fonts and visual/graphical embellishments.... as a start but it doesn't entirely stop there.

You can't copyright just a few notes like a few words. I'm not talking abut trademarks. Different laws serving a different purpose. D&D and other WotC published material as a whole is the expression of copyrighted material. You can't call your game the same thing and retain so much of the content of the game books (not just words, but graphical, pictorial elements as well) unchanged or only minimally changed to remove logos. That would be copyright infringement. However, when you take the rules mechanics and incorporate it into a whole different game. For example, what Paizo did as well as others. Your own game universe, backstory, worlds, etc. You create a new game. Its own canonical universe in the great vast multiverses of RPG games. You create your own graphical works.

Now, we know WotC can not have exclusive control over expression of dragons for example. There are many expression and verbal descriptions but you need to be creative to design how your dragons look with distinction. It this point, its going to be in the details. This is because a lot of what reference points to how dragons looks comes from nature, past, and present. Reptiles and how they look. Dinosaurs of the past, and design from the expressions in public domain with your own artistic input into the design.

You have to also be mindful of not using or representing named characters (even if the names come from public domain history) the same as WotC except that which is public domain and therefore is fair game. This means historic research to legally defend yourself if challenged. You need to have your facts straight and correct not based on public myths of the past that may not be factual or more importantly the public myth is not historic and old enough to be in the public domain. There is relatively contemporary myths of the past that's maybe only 50-70 years old. If the myth traces back to TSR / E. Gary Gygax's fictional work, it might be protected by and property of WotC or otherwise copyrighted and proted by his estate and business(es) since TSR. You need to be certain your history and facts are from the past or such that would be naturally public domain be they be public documents or such that is not copyrighted or commercialized or you obtain permission to use their research on history for creative inspiration. There are ways to use archaelogical research and similar cultural research as inspiration by using the researchers' interpretation of say various characters of ancient mythologies and use it as inspirational reference for the artistic designs without copying their research itself. Credits may be appropriate but you produce something new and distinct.

You will then incorporate the game mechanics inside that using your own words and sentence form as needed.

You do all that, your work can likely stand against legal challenges. Any one can file a lawsuit against anyone. There are potential consequences for filing frivolous lawsuits. However, you need to be put work in to make your own unique RPG game even if it uses the same game mechanics as another.

That is what I am doing.

[MaxAstro]

Well guys. Looks like we won. Fully and irrevocably.

I'm still a bit in shock.

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

[Raynulf]

They may have just backed down

Nothing is final until it's a legal document... but it looks like they have ears.

Kyle Brink wrote:

We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.

We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
You choose which you prefer to use.

They've also closed the survey. I suspect they were hoping that the survey would show that the universal condemnation they've been hearing would just be "a vocal minority" and that putting a survey on their system would encourage their fanbase to show popular support for them doing what they wanted.

Which mostly just goes to reinforce that the people making the decisions about this have literally no idea about what their product is or who plays it.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

Arguably, you would want to have a sound idea where that line is and have a safe berth from crossing that line. You have defense for your expressions drawn from public domain, public documents, and your own distinct sources of references and inspiration and unique input.

The idea is that you can point to those things as defense and your counterarguments against claims made. This is the hard work that goes before you publish.

[NerdOver9000]

MaxAstro wrote:

Well guys. Looks like we won. Fully and irrevocably.

I'm still a bit in shock.

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

No kidding. What amazing news to see. The only thing better would be to see 3.0 and 3.5 under Creative Commons as well.

I have to admit, I saw the news and came here right away to celebrate. My internet went squirrelly and the first thing I thought was, "Oh God, news must have hit and we hugged Paizo's poor website to death again."

[12Seal]

K, so how much XP did we get for this win?

[MaxAstro]

Raynulf wrote:

Nothing is final until it's a legal document... but it looks like they have ears.

At least one thing is final - the 5.1 SRD is now under Creative Commons. They included a publishing of it in that post, which means they can't back out of at least that.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

Raynulf wrote:

They may have just backed down

Nothing is final until it's a legal document... but it looks like they have ears.

Kyle Brink wrote:

We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.

We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
You choose which you prefer to use.

They've also closed the survey. I suspect they were hoping that the survey would show that the universal condemnation they've been hearing would just be "a vocal minority" and that putting a survey on their system would encourage their fanbase to show popular support for them doing what they wanted.

Which mostly just goes to reinforce that the people making the decisions about this have literally no idea about what their product is or who plays it.

In response to Raynulf and Kyle, we made the effort. This is good news. I have like you voiced my concerns in the survey and on D&D Beyonds discord. I don't mind them modifying 1.2 a little bit and apply it on future editions and works on those future editions. That is fair and reasonable. It is the harm of deactivating 1.0a and such with retroactive effect on prior editions that hurt or was disturbing.

Thank you all for standing up and defensing OGL 1.0a and we hope that we continue to defend it for those works already and potential new work under that license. I will also be curious about the continued development of Open RPG Creativity License.

[BeNotAfraid]

MaxAstro wrote:

Well guys. Looks like we won. Fully and irrevocably.

I'm still a bit in shock.
OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Those numbers are fudged as flip. I want them to declare their critical failure across existence. Rawr. #WotcNoSale

[MaxAstro]

What makes you think the numbers are fake, BeNotAfraid?

Overall it looks like 80-90% of respondents told Wizards they were unhappy with the move, which sounds about right to me. If anything, I'm a little surprised responses were that united; it's pretty hard to get 80% of people to agree about anything.

[David knott 242]

I must admit that some other news had misled me about what a big ogre Hasbro is. Apparently they have 5600 employees -- although whether this is before or after they lay off 1000 of them is unclear. In some industries, that would be considered a small company.

But it does seem that we have moved on to the situation I was hoping for. WotC backed off from their most egregious planned changes, so the rest of the industry can proceed with business as usual while taking backup actions to prepare for whenever they try to pull something like this again.

[Paul Ryan]

Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road...

[Arssanguinus]

I think they were caught off guard by the unified response, flanked, and sneak attacked.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

MaxAstro wrote:

What makes you think the numbers are fake, BeNotAfraid?

Overall it looks like 80-90% of respondents told Wizards they were unhappy with the move, which sounds about right to me. If anything, I'm a little surprised responses were that united; it's pretty hard to get 80% of people to agree about anything.

I believe its deep down the kind of acts that would universally harmed publishers especially those that used that license for non-WotC games they are making, made, or content for the games they were or had been making/made for.

I could understand if WotC didn't want such an "open" license (like OGL 1.0a) for new games or editions. They could do that. It would not have been so much an issue. The issue was the retroactive and viral effect that their proposal would caused.

[Leon Aquilla]

Whelp. Now I don't know what's going to happen.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

Paul Ryan wrote:

Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road...

Celebrate the victory of today but be vigilant (not vigilante) and on-guard for a future re-occurance. Businesses ALWAYS repeat mistakes by the phenomenon of "institutional memory loss" (just like governments). This happens because when their in a change over of leadership and staffing, things are forgotten over time.

No business is immune as long as they exist in perpetuity.

[BeNotAfraid]

MaxAstro wrote:

What makes you think the numbers are fake, BeNotAfraid?

... it's pretty hard to get 80% of people to agree about anything.

>.< My trust issues with obvious evil.

I don't trust Wotc to do the right thing. Not after their peekaboo with the OGL. I don't believe their so-called "response data" after they got caught and called out for it so hard it shared mainstream news space with factual world war. I feel bad for the actual creative types employed by Wotc because they'll have NDA's forever. Speaking of which, I will avoid anything the villains (who thought undoing 50+ years of goodness was smart) at WotC touch. Do not hire, collaborate, or stand within the same plane of them.
There's a lot of expensive paperweights at my local storefronts. Sigh.
#PaizoORC

[AceofMoxen]

Paul Ryan wrote:

Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road...

Exactly. I'm done with D&D. I shouldn't have to fight for my hobby. The way Hasbro did this under the table has completely broken my trust.

[Arssanguinus]

Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.

[Dragon Nexus Games]

David knott 242 wrote:

I must admit that some other news had misled me about what a big ogre Hasbro is. Apparently they have 5600 employees -- although whether this is before or after they lay off 1000 of them is unclear. In some industries, that would be considered a small company.

But it does seem that we have moved on to the situation I was hoping for. WotC backed off from their most egregious planned changes, so the rest of the industry can proceed with business as usual while taking backup actions to prepare for whenever they try to pull something like this again.

Hasbro is not the biggest corporation but they are not small but if you compare them to say, Microsoft, or Google or Amazon, they are significantly smaller. However, for a toy company, they are a sizable company. Toy companies tend to be limited to the <$15 Billion a year size.

Some make more and Hasbro isn't the largest toy manufacturing. They rival Mattel, and there is Lego and Bandai Namco, and then of course, MGA Entertainment (which is probably more known by product brands than its company name).

[The Raven Black]

I think they are trying to make the ORC stillborn.

People in the ORC Horde, keep strong and do not falter. The future of our hobby is in your hands.

[The Raven Black]

Arssanguinus wrote:

Once you’ve tried to stab me in my back, you don’t get to say oops my bad.

Indeed.

First rule of OGL-cide : do not miss.

[BeNotAfraid]

I stand by what I said. Avoid the ones at the top who came up with this mess. Their threat level stands.

[Eeveegirl1206]

WAAAAAHG!!!!!!!! We did it boys

[PossibleCabbage]

Paul Ryan wrote:

Good news at this point, but I won't be surprised if this all happens again two more D&D editions down the road...

Copyright law is primarily statutory, and I believe that the statute has the OGL 1.0a expiring in 2035 if not renewed. Since it's a perpetual license all the stuff published before then is in the clear but something would need to be done to let post-2035 material use it I believe.

So Hasbro's play is probably "do nothing now, try to rebuild what goodwill you lost, then do what you were going to do anyway later." Like backing off entirely here might have been a play to protect the box office returns for the movie that comes out in March, since they spent a bunch of money making it and companies like Universal and Paramount have significantly more weight to throw around than Hasbro.

[Raynulf]

Other news that came out yesterday and knowing Hasbro, probably had way more to do with their OGL decision than their survey failing to provide the PR counter they wanted.

The TL;DR version is that Hasbro shareholders are not happy with the company leadership.

[Eeveegirl1206]

Yes people definitely were not happy with a drop in DND beyond subscriptions.

Plus all the sales their competitors were getting.

They are still trying to turn DND into a micro transactions Hell. But we don’t have to pay attention

[see]

This is victory.

Seriously, in theory they might, in ten years, try to kill the OGL 1.0a again. But what would be the point?

The 5th edition SRD is now irrevocably available under CC BY 4. This means killing the OGL 1.0a will not allow them to protect the brand from people making compatible-with-5e product or advertising it as compatible with D&D. (They politely ASK that people not make compatibility claims, but CC BY 4 doesn't let them enforce it).

Heck, now whatever is done under ORC can, if ORC is properly drafted, directly incorporate everything that's in the SRD5.

All killing the OGL 1.0a from now on would do is get them the same bad publicity they just got, with far less upside. And they backed down this time in less than a month of publicity.

Victory is ours.

[StarlingSweeter]

Very proud of every player in the TTRPG community for fighting against corporate greed. I hope we can continue to unite this way in the future.