A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

General topics, including off-topic discussion, goes here.
Demetrius
Posts: 66
Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2022 4:50 am
Location: Porto < Minsk < Maladzieczna < Lviv

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by Demetrius »

deadPan c wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:12 pm Thought you guys would want to read:

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-st ... l-playtest
From what I see, it's as awful as it was, but this time more sneaky. The problems I see (I'm not a lawyer):

A. 1.0a is still de-authorized. (p.2) They're still breaking their promises, so we can't trust them. I'm sure this draft contains thousands of legal loopholes to exploit.

This is the biggest problem. They should not revoke what they promised to be there to stay!


B. The Severability seems like legal loophole to be able to revoke the new license at any time (9.d)? Like, if a small part becomes invalid or unenforceable, they can choose to revoke the whole license.

I'm sure their lawyers have already included a small bit that is not enforceable, just as a means to revoke it at any time. Any single word need to be checked beforehand to ensure it's enforceable! It's huge amout of work no one will take. (Also, even if 100% is enforceable now, something is sure to become non-enforceable in the future.)


C. d20 SRD from 3.5e is not allowed under this draft. It only allows 5e rules. 3.5e rules are off the table. (1.a.iii, 1.c.iii)


D. They still can cancel any license by declaring it as hateful, with no legal recourse! (6.f)

Discrimination is a problem, but it's problem for Wizards too. What can prevent Wizards from discrimination? Legal system has its flaws, but it's ultimately more transparent than any decision-making inside WotC.

If they really want to combat discrimination, they should remove the rule that forbids contesting their decision in court.

While it's there, I think it's just a way for Wizards to cancel any product, period. They say they'll use it against hateful projects, but with the license as written, they can just declare anyone ‘hateful’.


E. Sword of Damocles over virtual tabletops. It refers to some non-existent document that is probably non-irrevocable, so they can revoke it at any time. (1.b)


F. Any words on DnD Beyond or in FAQs don't matter (9.b). So, any promises they make that are not in legal text are worthless.


G. Limiting the rights to sue them. I think they've shown we should not trust them, so why should we give them away these rights? (9.e, 9.g, 9.h)
User avatar
teaman
Posts: 1707
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by teaman »

I'll publish stuff as Public Domain before I sign anything with Wizards.
Teaman is the sole proprietor of Sharp Mountain Games at roll20 and DTRPG

https://marketplace.roll20.net/browse/p ... tain-games
http://drivethrurpg.com/browse/pub/8418 ... tain-Games
User avatar
Solomoriah
Site Admin
Posts: 12447
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2008 8:15 pm
Location: LaBelle, Missouri
Contact:

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by Solomoriah »

Thanks Demetrius! Saved me reading it.

And, nope.
My personal site: www.gonnerman.org
deadPan c
Posts: 71
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2022 8:40 am
Location: England

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by deadPan c »

teaman wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:56 pm I'll publish stuff as Public Domain before I sign anything with Wizards.
That's up to you I guess ¯⁠\⁠_⁠(⁠ツ⁠)⁠_⁠/⁠¯

At this point I'm just tired of all the OGL drama BS. Still, I wanted to show you guys the news, see what you thought.
Any pronouns

First rolled a d20 in 2018

Absolute dice goblin. Very original, I know.
User avatar
Boggo
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:17 pm

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by Boggo »

Solomoriah wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:17 pm Gah. No. No way.

The only thing they are giving away is mechanics we don't even use.
and that they can't protect anyway...
No matter where you go...there you are
User avatar
knghtbrd
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:56 am

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by knghtbrd »

Solomoriah wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:17 pm Gah. No. No way.

The only thing they are giving away is mechanics we don't even use.
Yeah, and the "offer" of those mechanics comes with the right to change the rules on everything else going forward. It's the same poison. Excising Hasbro's property from our community's games is the best thing possible right now.

This ain't the hardworking employees at Wizards of the Coast. They're as sickened by this as we are by this. And it probably means their jobs if this goes through. I know a few of 'em. They can't say much, and they can't really talk to me about any of this. Closest I've got is encouragement to support the community. They can't say more than that.

Y'all made the right call to excise the SRD completely, I'd say. Even if some folks get fired tomorrow and the company absolutely about-faces, diversity is better for the community anyway.
User avatar
knghtbrd
Posts: 40
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2023 8:56 am

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by knghtbrd »

I wasn't gonna reply to this but I keep thinking I should.
Demetrius wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm From what I see, it's as awful as it was, but this time more sneaky. The problems I see (I'm not a lawyer):

A. 1.0a is still de-authorized. (p.2) They're still breaking their promises, so we can't trust them. I'm sure this draft contains thousands of legal loopholes to exploit.

This is the biggest problem. They should not revoke what they promised to be there to stay!
There are four ways they can do away with the OGL 1.0(a):
  1. Get you to violate its terms and revoke the license.
  2. Get you to accept a new agreement. BEWARE WEBSITE TOS CHANGES!
  3. Sue and win (no-show = default, snow a judge about how law doesn't apply, etc.)
  4. Convince you or others it's revoked because they say so.
We've got a few Linux folks here: Everything out of Hasbro is, and has been, FUD. They want to create a miasma of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. They might sue me! I can't fight them if they do that! They risk a lot more than you do if they try suing. The law, precedent, case law, and good sense are against them. Not only that, how much of that stuff can they really own, anyway? How much more that isn't part of the SRD is also not ownable?

So far, thankfully, their fear tactics are mostly not working. So now they're trying "What, you said you wanted open license we don't control! It's CC! What more do you want?!" Except it's not, and they're playing the same games as before. You've done a fine job outlining how, which is why I wasn't gonna reply to this.
Demetrius wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
B. The Severability seems like legal loophole to be able to revoke the new license at any time (9.d)? Like, if a small part becomes invalid or unenforceable, they can choose to revoke the whole license.

I'm sure their lawyers have already included a small bit that is not enforceable, just as a means to revoke it at any time. Any single word need to be checked beforehand to ensure it's enforceable! It's huge amout of work no one will take. (Also, even if 100% is enforceable now, something is sure to become non-enforceable in the future.)
Severability normally says simply this: "If part of this agreement is not enforceable, it's as if it doesn't exist." Meaning, if it's illegal where you live for a company to force you to arbitration and their contract tries to do that … it DOES NOT void the contract. Rather, it's like that clause was simply not there. Beware anything that says more than that, particularly if it says the agreement IS ended if something in it is illegal. That'd be a way to knowingly insert a poison pill into an agreement.
Demetrius wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm C. d20 SRD from 3.5e is not allowed under this draft. It only allows 5e rules. 3.5e rules are off the table. (1.a.iii, 1.c.iii)
This is way more insidious than you realize! If you accept these terms and then you go and make something for 5E/6E/One D&D to Screw Them All, it means you cannot turn around and make that thing for Pathfinder 1E, and they're hoping you'll maybe also think not for Pathfinder 2E either.

It's possible they've never thought of that. But um, everything else they've done has been so utterly disgustingly duplicitous, dishonest, and unethical … I just assume that if there's something nefarious they might attempt to argue, assume they're preparing to argue it.

Demetrius wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm D. They still can cancel any license by declaring it as hateful, with no legal recourse! (6.f)

Discrimination is a problem, but it's problem for Wizards too. What can prevent Wizards from discrimination? Legal system has its flaws, but it's ultimately more transparent than any decision-making inside WotC.

If they really want to combat discrimination, they should remove the rule that forbids contesting their decision in court.

While it's there, I think it's just a way for Wizards to cancel any product, period. They say they'll use it against hateful projects, but with the license as written, they can just declare anyone ‘hateful’.
Also a non-starter. They don't need a Copyright cudgel for this. Not because ave some people have potentially argued that they could go after you otherwise regardless of the license (they can't, at least under US law), but because if they come out with something truly objectionable to the vast majority of people, we will solve the problem for them by not buying it and spreading the word that it's pretty bad.

Paizo's gone on record saying that they will not be attempting to put something like this into their license. "Wouldn't that be just replacing one person with a killswitch on anything, for any reason, with another person with a killswitch?" I was pretty sure they'd have that much sense, and it sounds like they do. Proof will be in the pudding. But that won't affect BF much since BF doesn't have a commercial model to protect.
Demetrius wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm E. Sword of Damocles over virtual tabletops. It refers to some non-existent document that is probably non-irrevocable, so they can revoke it at any time. (1.b)

F. Any words on DnD Beyond or in FAQs don't matter (9.b). So, any promises they make that are not in legal text are worthless.

G. Limiting the rights to sue them. I think they've shown we should not trust them, so why should we give them away these rights? (9.e, 9.g, 9.h)
See, they know that the fact they interpreted the OGL 1.0(a) as being irrevocable publicly is biting them in the ass. Even if they argue in court that wasn't part of the legal agreement, it can be interpreted that way and they know that they themselves did so. They're trying to avoid making that mistake again.

Every time Hasbro opens their mouths, it makes them look more dishonest. And more desperate. I smell their fear from six hours away. I think they're still not afraid of us, though. Not yet anyway.
rudgar
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:46 am

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by rudgar »

Solomoriah wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:58 pm Thanks Demetrius! Saved me reading it.

And, nope.
I understand the position, but I hope that we can at least keep the old stuff on the download page. (Especially thinking about supplements where maybe the author has left).

This quote would seem to protect such products in perpetuity:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.

That's from the draft of OGL 1.2.

Not saying that it should be used for new content going forward, just hoping that the old stuff isn't thrown out
rudgar
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2020 9:46 am

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by rudgar »

By the way, I'm sorry I didn't suggest this before (maybe someone else did), but a plagairism checker would possibly be an idea to make this job easier (something like turnitin, but for comparing two documents).

But the progress you all have made is astonishing
User avatar
Boggo
Posts: 1381
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2022 7:17 pm

Re: A Manifesto of Sorts, which is a Plan as well

Post by Boggo »

rudgar wrote: Fri Jan 20, 2023 6:50 am
Solomoriah wrote: Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:58 pm Thanks Demetrius! Saved me reading it.

And, nope.
I understand the position, but I hope that we can at least keep the old stuff on the download page. (Especially thinking about supplements where maybe the author has left).

This quote would seem to protect such products in perpetuity:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.

That's from the draft of OGL 1.2.

Not saying that it should be used for new content going forward, just hoping that the old stuff isn't thrown out
I'm not sure that that's a great idea, and I don't know that the pretend changes Hasbro have made are going to make it any safer, the decision is Solo's but personally I'd be surprised if he changed his mind
No matter where you go...there you are
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 34 guests