And don't rely on Google either. For things like Gmail and Drive accounts, or even having an Android phone: https://www.engadget.com/terraria-google-stadia-indie-what-happened-190001711.html -- and you'll never get a response from Google's infamous stone-wall support, unless you're the Terraria developer with 30 million users...
The "hinted at leak" has been actually leaked. As in the text thereof. It has been fairly reliably claimed it was sent out to at least some people for their signature. It is extremely clear that WOTC consider people making things with D&D to be something they 100% deserve a significant share of at all times, and honestly basically own outright. Even Gygax at his most mercenary wasn't quite that greedy.
Equally, a lot of the claims they made in their public statement are nonsensical - they do not make sense when compared with the actual text of what was leaked.
Given the aforementioned, their trustworthiness on anything is nonexistent. I'd argue it might actually be negative.
The OGL was DEFINITELY a major reason 3e and its ancillary hanger-on products got so big. Note that 4e didn't have one (and had a correspondingly struggling/limited 3rd party market). 5e did again. While correlation is not causation, it sure as hell helps. And this also means WotC management has watched this happen TWICE and still not observed it.
It genuinely may be one of the stupidest things I have seen anyone do, and I defend drunk violent people for a living.
I'll summarize a few key points and then add some commentary of my own:
1. You cannot copyright rules themselves. You _can_ copyright the particular expression of the rules (the rulebook's exact contents), but you cannot stop someone from reproducing the rules in their own words.
a. My addition ... this is exactly how recipe copyright works. You cannot copyright a recipe's list of ingredients and the mechanical instructions, just the particular version you put in a cookbook, and specifically only the creative choices (layout, pictures, flavor text, etc.). In other words, while someone probably cannot photocopy the cookbook without violating copyright, they _can_ retype the ingredients and the instructions (without any color text about your Grandma) and reproduce them.
2. It's very unlikely that things like adventure modules, books of monsters, etc. needed the OGL at all. Simply making a product that is compatible with the D&D rules does not require a license. The license only applies to reproductions of the rules (see #1).
b. This means that making a new game world with the same rules _also_ doesn't need the OGL unless you wanted to include the actual text of the D&D rules in your product. You can either say "these rules are just like D&D, see the D&D reference" or you can rewrite the rules in your own words.
That said, nothing stops Hasbro from suing you if they want to, even if they're likely to lose. Hasbro has much bigger pockets than any tiny company or independent creator, so the OGL was helpful in reassuring people they wouldn't be sued.
You wrote: "Suppose this change happens. What happens to products released under the original license? Can they still be sold?"
IANAL but I'm 100% sure the answer is that nothing happens to these products. You cannot retroactively revoke a contract, and a license is a contract. If someone created a product under the OGL 1.0 and released it, you cannot simply force them to abide by a new license. The version of the product you released under the OGL 1.0 still exists under that license. All WotC can do is release _new_ products under the _new_ license.
I'm basing this on the situation with open source software license, on which the OGL was obviously based. It's widely agreed that you cannot relicense an existing released version of a software product retroactively. The OGL is essentially similar to an open source software license, so I can't imagine it would be any different. And in general this applies to all contracts. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract after both parties agree to it.
This is all true, but it neglects what was so significant about the OGL. Yeah, you can write something that's basically the rules to D&D but never say anything about D&D. "Nobody here but us chickens!" And then nobody would buy it.
The reason something like Tome of Beasts can succeed is that they can flat out say, "This is for D&D!!! See!!!!! Look at all this D&D!!!!!" This takes a license.
And yeah, sure, the old license still holds for OLD PRODUCTS. But if your business wants to continue to make new stuff (always good strategy for a business) or if your streaming company wants to make new streams (it does) whether that license can still be used (probably not, eventually) is a matter of professional life and death.
"This is all true, but it neglects what was so significant about the OGL. Yeah, you can write something that's basically the rules to D&D but never say anything about D&D. "Nobody here but us chickens!" And then nobody would buy it."
Doh, I forgot to mention that the Legal Eagle video covers this too. Per the video, this is not correct. It's not a copyright or trademark violation to say something like "This module works with the D&D 5e ruleset" as long you don't state or imply that this is an official product or somehow endorsed by WotC.
Also, re: new streams. First of all, you don't need the OGL to stream a D&D session. But even if you did, a new stream using the _old_ rules will still use the _old_ license. As I said, you cannot retroactively change the license for someone who has already purchased the product under a previous license.
This is a business blog, and I only focus on the practical. I think the most important paragraph in your first part had the words "nothing stops Hasbro from suing you if they want to".
I'm not disputing everything you and Legal Eagle said (though I think claiming your work is a 5E expansion would be shaky on trademark grounds).
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter, because the stink on the whole thing is totally there now. They want the license dead. They have all the lawyers in the world. Thus, fine points of law don't matter anymore. It is now tainted ground.
Yes, this is a good point. Certainly, if I were streaming D&D content or making expansions, etc., I'd strongly reconsider building on top of D&D in the future after the new proposed license was revealed.
WotC did publish a retraction and mea culpa, but it's still extremely concerning that this got far enough internally to be shared with anyone outside the company, as opposed to being shot down with "this would destroy the community and goodwill we've built".
I think these articles and videos are interesting and they may have validity on the merits, but it's all armchair lawyering.
Hasbro has enough IP lawyers to blot out the light of the sun. Until you get someone willing to pony up the big pile of cash to argue this mess in front of a judge, the law is whatever Hasbro says it is. What will they eventually say? Who knows!?!?
I do appreciate people's feedback as it helps me clarify my overall point: You have risks and failure points when you run a business. Two weeks ago, using the OGL was an acceptable risk. Now it is all smelly. Plan accordingly.
Another series of D&D based rulebooks that I have supported in the past is making their own system as well that will have a perpetual license and be compatible enough that their own modules can be ported over. Their current name leaves something to be desired in terms of searchability. (It's called "Cool name goes here".) Who knows if it'll be good, or if it's too close that wotc will try to smite it.
Geneforge was name-dropped in a list video on Youtube channel Outside Xbox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-kAhYngvE) "7 Side quests you should never complete: commenter edition", right alongside the likes of Red Dead Redemption 2 and Elden Ring!
The most amazing thing about this debacle is how it united everyone across the political spectrum on the issue. Left wing and right wing commentators alike were calling out Hasbro.
If this situation had happened in videogames instead of table top, it would have fit perfectly in one of Zero Punctuation's "Lets all laugh at an industry" segments.
It's not just the OGL, it's any platform you rely on. As you point out, with the example of your business depending on Steam.
Even today, app developers relying on the Twitter API found themselves frozen out: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2023/01/twitter-says-third-party-apps-broke-long-standing-api-rules-wont-name-rules/ -- with little recourse. And now they have a broken business model. (Interestingly enough, this is another case of a company coming "under new management"...)
And don't rely on Google either. For things like Gmail and Drive accounts, or even having an Android phone: https://www.engadget.com/terraria-google-stadia-indie-what-happened-190001711.html -- and you'll never get a response from Google's infamous stone-wall support, unless you're the Terraria developer with 30 million users...
The "hinted at leak" has been actually leaked. As in the text thereof. It has been fairly reliably claimed it was sent out to at least some people for their signature. It is extremely clear that WOTC consider people making things with D&D to be something they 100% deserve a significant share of at all times, and honestly basically own outright. Even Gygax at his most mercenary wasn't quite that greedy.
Equally, a lot of the claims they made in their public statement are nonsensical - they do not make sense when compared with the actual text of what was leaked.
Given the aforementioned, their trustworthiness on anything is nonexistent. I'd argue it might actually be negative.
The OGL was DEFINITELY a major reason 3e and its ancillary hanger-on products got so big. Note that 4e didn't have one (and had a correspondingly struggling/limited 3rd party market). 5e did again. While correlation is not causation, it sure as hell helps. And this also means WotC management has watched this happen TWICE and still not observed it.
It genuinely may be one of the stupidest things I have seen anyone do, and I defend drunk violent people for a living.
Legal Eagle on YouTube has a good video on this - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZQJQYqhAgY
I'll summarize a few key points and then add some commentary of my own:
1. You cannot copyright rules themselves. You _can_ copyright the particular expression of the rules (the rulebook's exact contents), but you cannot stop someone from reproducing the rules in their own words.
a. My addition ... this is exactly how recipe copyright works. You cannot copyright a recipe's list of ingredients and the mechanical instructions, just the particular version you put in a cookbook, and specifically only the creative choices (layout, pictures, flavor text, etc.). In other words, while someone probably cannot photocopy the cookbook without violating copyright, they _can_ retype the ingredients and the instructions (without any color text about your Grandma) and reproduce them.
2. It's very unlikely that things like adventure modules, books of monsters, etc. needed the OGL at all. Simply making a product that is compatible with the D&D rules does not require a license. The license only applies to reproductions of the rules (see #1).
b. This means that making a new game world with the same rules _also_ doesn't need the OGL unless you wanted to include the actual text of the D&D rules in your product. You can either say "these rules are just like D&D, see the D&D reference" or you can rewrite the rules in your own words.
That said, nothing stops Hasbro from suing you if they want to, even if they're likely to lose. Hasbro has much bigger pockets than any tiny company or independent creator, so the OGL was helpful in reassuring people they wouldn't be sued.
You wrote: "Suppose this change happens. What happens to products released under the original license? Can they still be sold?"
IANAL but I'm 100% sure the answer is that nothing happens to these products. You cannot retroactively revoke a contract, and a license is a contract. If someone created a product under the OGL 1.0 and released it, you cannot simply force them to abide by a new license. The version of the product you released under the OGL 1.0 still exists under that license. All WotC can do is release _new_ products under the _new_ license.
I'm basing this on the situation with open source software license, on which the OGL was obviously based. It's widely agreed that you cannot relicense an existing released version of a software product retroactively. The OGL is essentially similar to an open source software license, so I can't imagine it would be any different. And in general this applies to all contracts. You cannot unilaterally change the terms of a contract after both parties agree to it.
This is all true, but it neglects what was so significant about the OGL. Yeah, you can write something that's basically the rules to D&D but never say anything about D&D. "Nobody here but us chickens!" And then nobody would buy it.
The reason something like Tome of Beasts can succeed is that they can flat out say, "This is for D&D!!! See!!!!! Look at all this D&D!!!!!" This takes a license.
And yeah, sure, the old license still holds for OLD PRODUCTS. But if your business wants to continue to make new stuff (always good strategy for a business) or if your streaming company wants to make new streams (it does) whether that license can still be used (probably not, eventually) is a matter of professional life and death.
"This is all true, but it neglects what was so significant about the OGL. Yeah, you can write something that's basically the rules to D&D but never say anything about D&D. "Nobody here but us chickens!" And then nobody would buy it."
Doh, I forgot to mention that the Legal Eagle video covers this too. Per the video, this is not correct. It's not a copyright or trademark violation to say something like "This module works with the D&D 5e ruleset" as long you don't state or imply that this is an official product or somehow endorsed by WotC.
Also, re: new streams. First of all, you don't need the OGL to stream a D&D session. But even if you did, a new stream using the _old_ rules will still use the _old_ license. As I said, you cannot retroactively change the license for someone who has already purchased the product under a previous license.
This is a business blog, and I only focus on the practical. I think the most important paragraph in your first part had the words "nothing stops Hasbro from suing you if they want to".
I'm not disputing everything you and Legal Eagle said (though I think claiming your work is a 5E expansion would be shaky on trademark grounds).
What I am saying is that it doesn't matter, because the stink on the whole thing is totally there now. They want the license dead. They have all the lawyers in the world. Thus, fine points of law don't matter anymore. It is now tainted ground.
Yes, this is a good point. Certainly, if I were streaming D&D content or making expansions, etc., I'd strongly reconsider building on top of D&D in the future after the new proposed license was revealed.
WotC did publish a retraction and mea culpa, but it's still extremely concerning that this got far enough internally to be shared with anyone outside the company, as opposed to being shot down with "this would destroy the community and goodwill we've built".
You wouldn't be able to say "this work is a 5e expansion", you would be able to say "this work is compatible with the 5e ruleset".
All too often, the law doesn't care about who is right. It cares about who is rich.
I found this to be a good analysis https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators and matches what Legal Eagle covered in his video
I think these articles and videos are interesting and they may have validity on the merits, but it's all armchair lawyering.
Hasbro has enough IP lawyers to blot out the light of the sun. Until you get someone willing to pony up the big pile of cash to argue this mess in front of a judge, the law is whatever Hasbro says it is. What will they eventually say? Who knows!?!?
I do appreciate people's feedback as it helps me clarify my overall point: You have risks and failure points when you run a business. Two weeks ago, using the OGL was an acceptable risk. Now it is all smelly. Plan accordingly.
Reminds me of way back when Realmz had to rename everything (probably due to legal threats.) We'll just call Strength Brawn!
Another series of D&D based rulebooks that I have supported in the past is making their own system as well that will have a perpetual license and be compatible enough that their own modules can be ported over. Their current name leaves something to be desired in terms of searchability. (It's called "Cool name goes here".) Who knows if it'll be good, or if it's too close that wotc will try to smite it.
That name is killing me. Kids! Come up with a good, catchy, trademark-safe name EARLY. Your product's name is the worst possible place to be cutesy.
Geneforge was name-dropped in a list video on Youtube channel Outside Xbox (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CX-kAhYngvE) "7 Side quests you should never complete: commenter edition", right alongside the likes of Red Dead Redemption 2 and Elden Ring!
Thanks for pointing this out! Gave me a laugh!
The most amazing thing about this debacle is how it united everyone across the political spectrum on the issue. Left wing and right wing commentators alike were calling out Hasbro.
WotC didn't walk back the license changes until a lot of people started to cancel their Beyond D&D subscriptions.
I expect there to be a concerted effort to abandon the OGL and all move onto the open license.
If this situation had happened in videogames instead of table top, it would have fit perfectly in one of Zero Punctuation's "Lets all laugh at an industry" segments.
that never learns anything, tee hee hee.
As soon as anyone in this industry learns anything, they leave.
And those that replace them promptly make the same mistakes.