OneDnD et OGL, topic 1.2 to bring them all and in darkness...

[LeRatierBretonnien]

La réponse construite et argumentée de l'équipe de FoundryVTT, qui résume les points inacceptables, ainsi que quelques éléments d'interprétation : https://foundryvtt.com/article/ogl12-response-feedback/

[Qui Revient de Loin]

Très intéressant.

Et ça en devient presque un jeu, plus on creuse, plus on trouve d'entourloupe potentiel (la partie "policy" de l'OGL, pouvant donc être modifiée n'importe quand sans que l'OGL soit modifiée...). Manque de bol, les rôliste sont bons en lecture et analyse des règles de jeu et des pactes démoniaques ^^

[Qui Revient de Loin]

"According to gaming and entertainment lawyer Noah Downs (opens in new tab)," what "fans to say the following when responding to the survey:"

• Don't revoke OGL 1.0a and/or offer an incentive to accept the new one
  
• Make this expressly royalty free
  
• Make it truly irrevocable. Give the community something they can build off of
  
• Make sure that creators have a right to contest WotC's bad-faith action (RE sections 3 and sections 6c, e, and f)
  
• Have a standard severability clause
  
• Don't limit what virtual tabletops can do, because that denies innovation in the space
  

https://www.gamesradar.com/is-the-new-d ... an-fix-it/

[Qui Revient de Loin]

Re: OneDnD et évolution de la license OGLMessage par Dr Hiatus » mar. janv. 17, 2023 9:21 pm

Mahar a écrit : ↑mar. janv. 17, 2023 8:22 pm J'ai un peu perdu le fil des échanges... Il y a un lien entre le projet ORC (de Paizo si j'ai bien compris) et le Black Flag de Kobbold Press ? Ou bien ce sont deux initiatives parallèles ?

Les deux initiatives sont annoncées sur la même période, en réponse à l'OGL fuitée.
Le lien est pour l'instant indirect : Kobold Press annonce
- participer à la licence ORC
- vouloir publier un système Black Flag, apparemment en alternative à donj'.

Le kif, ce serait que black flag soit effectivement sous licence ORC et compatible avec les donjonneries.

Ce que je me demande, dans ce cas, c'est comment des suppléments pourraient annoncer ladite compatibilité sans que les wizards se fachent tout (boite) rouge. C'est pas que ce système soit indispensable, c'est que c'est plus facile de vendre avec une étiquette déjà connue.

Je sais pas si ça a été dit mais :

TTRPG publisher Kobold Press released its first announcement for Project Black Flag, a “core fantasy RPG” system that allows “any publisher or creator” to develop third-party content. Sharing the news via its official blog on January 18, Kobold Press says the system will operate under Paizo’s upcoming Open RPG Creative Licence (ORC).

https://www.wargamer.com/dnd/kobold-pre ... black-flag

[Islayre d'Argolh]

retour de Sly Flourish concernant le survey pour la 1.2 :

Wizards of the Coast released a new draft of their "Open" Gaming License version 1.2 including releasing the core mechanics of the original 5e System Resource Document version 5.1 under a Creative Commons license. That's pretty great but it's still not as good as what we had and expected to keep with the OGL 1.0a.

Today they opened a survey for feedback and now is our opportunity to provide that feedback.

Most of us aren't lawyers or have any background (or interest) in contracts like this. So I've talked to a lot of people, including lawyers, to try to get a consensus of these licenses and the feedback we can provide to WOTC.

Thus, here's the feedback I plan to provide:

Don't attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. The best way to begin to repair the D&D brand is to not attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. It's not even clear it's legal to do so and it certainly goes against WOTC's original intent of the agreement we shared. WOTC's using a one-word loophole in ways several attorneys say is questionable or even unlawful.

Further, "deauthorizing" the OGL 1.0a has tremendous downstream consequences for publishers who trusted WOTC and used the OGL to share their own material downstream. If the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized, it means theycan't share the material they intended to through the OGL 1.0a.

Don't attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a.

Release lists of the names of species, spells, magic items, and monsters in the 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. WOTC releasing anything under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 is a huge step forward. It's a well used and well trusted license. In WOTC's OGL 1.2 draft they state their plan to release the core mechanics of 5e except for classes, species, monsters, magic items, and spells.

Include the lists of names of species, monsters, magic items, and spells. This is very likely material we could use anyway under copyright law but it helps if we know that WOTC agreed. Releasing these lists under the CC BY 4.0 helps considerably when writing 5e compatible adventures and campaigns.

Even better? Release the entire 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.

Use independent third party arbitration for hateful content. There's no way WOTC should have the sole right to decide what is hateful content. WOTC themselves had trouble with this within the past four months. There's no way WOTC should have full authority over what is hateful and no way that a licensed publisher should have no recourse to defend themselves. The world also changes. Material considered obscene years ago is now embraced and vice versa. This is such a complicated topic it's probably best removed completely.

Add "Royalty Free". The current draft OGL 1.2 does not describe itself as a "royalty free" license. The license should declare itself to be "royalty free".

Make it Truly Irrevocable. As written, the OGL 1.2 redefines irrevocable to mean that the license can't be revoked when applied to a product but not that the license itself can't be revoked. This license, on its own and applied to their system resource documents, should be irrevocable. This is the whole reason we're in this problem to begin with. I, for one, never want to have this conversation again.

Rewrite the termination clause. As written, the termination clause in the OGL 1.2 is far too wide. Who determines if a licensee has infringed on WOTC's intellectual property? How is that arbitrated? This whole statement over-reaches and can be used by WOTC to penalize just about any creator if they want to.

Rewrite the severability clause. As written, the severability clause in 9(d) almost certainly gives WOTC the ability to invalidate the license. Given that WOTC intends to attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a on a technicality, I have no faith WOTC won't try it again here.

State that if any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the license's provisions remain in effect. Also if the agreement or any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction (e.g. country or state) the license and those provisions remain in effect for all other jurisdictions where they have not been ruled illegal or unenforceable.

Other feedback:

Section 3(a) - Strike language prohibiting creators from seeking injunctive relief.

Section 6(e) - Strike or rewrite to account for international laws. A creator in the US can't be expected to abide by laws in other countries and vice versa.

Section 7(b)(ii) - Expand time to cure to 180 days and better define what actions are sufficient to cure a breach.
Not Covering the VTT Stuff

This feedback doesn't cover the VTT policies described in the OGL 1.2 draft which are significant. See the feedback provided by Foundry for a better understanding of how this affects virtual tabletops.

[DocDandy]

Ça ressemble à une liste de souhaits. 
Dans l'idée oui mais dans les faits c'est un peu comme faire un vœu. 

[Qui Revient de Loin]

Bon en même temps WOTC se dit à l'écoute et demande du feedback, donc ça me parait la bonne façon de faire, tout en informant la communauté pour qu'elle puisse réagir à cette liste de souhaits.

Enfin on est dans une sorte de négociation, donc comme toujours il faut demander beaucoup pour avoir un peu, non ? Si on demande le minimum, WOTC proposera surement moins en disant avoir fait la moitié du chemin, non ?

(et en parallèle, il faut avancer sur l'ORC et les SRD -pardon, les "Open RPG ruleset"- indépendants, et ces listes de souhaits y contribuent)

[Inigin]

Très intéressant.

Et ça en devient presque un jeu, plus on creuse, plus on trouve d'entourloupe potentiel (la partie "policy" de l'OGL, pouvant donc être modifiée n'importe quand sans que l'OGL soit modifiée...). Manque de bol, les rôliste sont bons en lecture et analyse des règles de jeu et des pactes démoniaques ^^

(Caveat : c'est super intéressant et je le diffuse partout)

Moui... plus on creuse plus on trouve, je pense que ça s'applique à beaucoup de domaines. Ca ressemble plus à un problème de confiance.

Pendant ce temps, vous avez essayé de produire du contenu pour la plupart des autres jeux dont vous n'avez pas la licence et de le vendre ? Non ? C'est mieux, n'essayez pas.

Bon en même temps WOTC se dit à l'écoute et demande du feedback, donc ça me parait la bonne façon de faire

Choucroute. Ils veulent des retours ? Ils vont en avoir.

[Islayre d'Argolh]

Choucroute. Ils veulent des retours ? Ils vont en avoir.

Voila.

[Nolendur]

Choucroute. Ils veulent des retours ? Ils vont en avoir.

Voila.

D'autant que toute confiance est perdue et qu'elle n'est pas près de revenir. La confiance ne se regagne pas sur des promesses. Parfois elle ne se regagne jamais, et parfois elle se regagne grâce à une longue période de démonstration. Le coup qu'ils ont fait en mode "ah mais vous n'avez pas lu les petites lignes ?", ça a servi d'expérience. Trompe moi une fois... Maintenant, la plupart des acteurs sérieux n'accepteront jamais une clause qui peut leur péter à la tronche et dont la seule garantie de WotC est "mais non, vous inquiétez pas, on a pas de mauvaises intentions". La blague...

[Cryoban]

La confiance ne se regagne pas sur des promesses. Parfois elle ne se regagne jamais, et parfois elle se regagne grâce à une longue période de démonstration.

Comme tu y vas. La confiance sera globalement revenu dans moins d'un an chez la plupart des clients rôlistes, je pense que la vie quotidienne émaillée de scandales bien plus graves nous le prouve régulièrement.

[Nhumai]

Comme tu y vas. La confiance sera globalement revenu dans moins d'un an chez la plupart des clients rôlistes, je pense que la vie quotidienne émaillée de scandales bien plus graves nous le prouve régulièrement.

Je suis d'accord avec ça.
J'ajouterai que je ne serais pas étonné d'assister a l'émergence dans un futur pas si lointain de nouveaux acteurs sur la scène des éditeurs tiers/influenceurs DDesques et autres producteurs de contenu affiliés.pour remplacer ceux qui seront partis sur une autre voie.
"La nature a horreur du vide" paraît-il .

[Orlov]

retour de Sly Flourish concernant le survey pour la 1.2 :

Spoiler:

Wizards of the Coast released a new draft of their "Open" Gaming License version 1.2 including releasing the core mechanics of the original 5e System Resource Document version 5.1 under a Creative Commons license. That's pretty great but it's still not as good as what we had and expected to keep with the OGL 1.0a.

Today they opened a survey for feedback and now is our opportunity to provide that feedback.

Most of us aren't lawyers or have any background (or interest) in contracts like this. So I've talked to a lot of people, including lawyers, to try to get a consensus of these licenses and the feedback we can provide to WOTC.

Thus, here's the feedback I plan to provide:

Don't attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. The best way to begin to repair the D&D brand is to not attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. It's not even clear it's legal to do so and it certainly goes against WOTC's original intent of the agreement we shared. WOTC's using a one-word loophole in ways several attorneys say is questionable or even unlawful.

Further, "deauthorizing" the OGL 1.0a has tremendous downstream consequences for publishers who trusted WOTC and used the OGL to share their own material downstream. If the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized, it means theycan't share the material they intended to through the OGL 1.0a.

Don't attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a.

Release lists of the names of species, spells, magic items, and monsters in the 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. WOTC releasing anything under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 is a huge step forward. It's a well used and well trusted license. In WOTC's OGL 1.2 draft they state their plan to release the core mechanics of 5e except for classes, species, monsters, magic items, and spells.

Include the lists of names of species, monsters, magic items, and spells. This is very likely material we could use anyway under copyright law but it helps if we know that WOTC agreed. Releasing these lists under the CC BY 4.0 helps considerably when writing 5e compatible adventures and campaigns.

Even better? Release the entire 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.

Use independent third party arbitration for hateful content. There's no way WOTC should have the sole right to decide what is hateful content. WOTC themselves had trouble with this within the past four months. There's no way WOTC should have full authority over what is hateful and no way that a licensed publisher should have no recourse to defend themselves. The world also changes. Material considered obscene years ago is now embraced and vice versa. This is such a complicated topic it's probably best removed completely.

Add "Royalty Free". The current draft OGL 1.2 does not describe itself as a "royalty free" license. The license should declare itself to be "royalty free".

Make it Truly Irrevocable. As written, the OGL 1.2 redefines irrevocable to mean that the license can't be revoked when applied to a product but not that the license itself can't be revoked. This license, on its own and applied to their system resource documents, should be irrevocable. This is the whole reason we're in this problem to begin with. I, for one, never want to have this conversation again.

Rewrite the termination clause. As written, the termination clause in the OGL 1.2 is far too wide. Who determines if a licensee has infringed on WOTC's intellectual property? How is that arbitrated? This whole statement over-reaches and can be used by WOTC to penalize just about any creator if they want to.

Rewrite the severability clause. As written, the severability clause in 9(d) almost certainly gives WOTC the ability to invalidate the license. Given that WOTC intends to attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a on a technicality, I have no faith WOTC won't try it again here.

State that if any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the license's provisions remain in effect. Also if the agreement or any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction (e.g. country or state) the license and those provisions remain in effect for all other jurisdictions where they have not been ruled illegal or unenforceable.

Other feedback:

Section 3(a) - Strike language prohibiting creators from seeking injunctive relief.

Section 6(e) - Strike or rewrite to account for international laws. A creator in the US can't be expected to abide by laws in other countries and vice versa.

Section 7(b)(ii) - Expand time to cure to 180 days and better define what actions are sufficient to cure a breach.
Not Covering the VTT Stuff

This feedback doesn't cover the VTT policies described in the OGL 1.2 draft which are significant. See the feedback provided by Foundry for a better understanding of how this affects virtual tabletops.

J' espère qu'on aura ce même niveau de vigilance et d'exigence vis à vis des autres licences.

[AlexS]

retour de Sly Flourish concernant le survey pour la 1.2 :

Spoiler:

Wizards of the Coast released a new draft of their "Open" Gaming License version 1.2 including releasing the core mechanics of the original 5e System Resource Document version 5.1 under a Creative Commons license. That's pretty great but it's still not as good as what we had and expected to keep with the OGL 1.0a.

Today they opened a survey for feedback and now is our opportunity to provide that feedback.

Most of us aren't lawyers or have any background (or interest) in contracts like this. So I've talked to a lot of people, including lawyers, to try to get a consensus of these licenses and the feedback we can provide to WOTC.

Thus, here's the feedback I plan to provide:

Don't attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. The best way to begin to repair the D&D brand is to not attempt to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a. It's not even clear it's legal to do so and it certainly goes against WOTC's original intent of the agreement we shared. WOTC's using a one-word loophole in ways several attorneys say is questionable or even unlawful.

Further, "deauthorizing" the OGL 1.0a has tremendous downstream consequences for publishers who trusted WOTC and used the OGL to share their own material downstream. If the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized, it means theycan't share the material they intended to through the OGL 1.0a.

Don't attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a.

Release lists of the names of species, spells, magic items, and monsters in the 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license. WOTC releasing anything under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 is a huge step forward. It's a well used and well trusted license. In WOTC's OGL 1.2 draft they state their plan to release the core mechanics of 5e except for classes, species, monsters, magic items, and spells.

Include the lists of names of species, monsters, magic items, and spells. This is very likely material we could use anyway under copyright law but it helps if we know that WOTC agreed. Releasing these lists under the CC BY 4.0 helps considerably when writing 5e compatible adventures and campaigns.

Even better? Release the entire 5.1 SRD under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license.

Use independent third party arbitration for hateful content. There's no way WOTC should have the sole right to decide what is hateful content. WOTC themselves had trouble with this within the past four months. There's no way WOTC should have full authority over what is hateful and no way that a licensed publisher should have no recourse to defend themselves. The world also changes. Material considered obscene years ago is now embraced and vice versa. This is such a complicated topic it's probably best removed completely.

Add "Royalty Free". The current draft OGL 1.2 does not describe itself as a "royalty free" license. The license should declare itself to be "royalty free".

Make it Truly Irrevocable. As written, the OGL 1.2 redefines irrevocable to mean that the license can't be revoked when applied to a product but not that the license itself can't be revoked. This license, on its own and applied to their system resource documents, should be irrevocable. This is the whole reason we're in this problem to begin with. I, for one, never want to have this conversation again.

Rewrite the termination clause. As written, the termination clause in the OGL 1.2 is far too wide. Who determines if a licensee has infringed on WOTC's intellectual property? How is that arbitrated? This whole statement over-reaches and can be used by WOTC to penalize just about any creator if they want to.

Rewrite the severability clause. As written, the severability clause in 9(d) almost certainly gives WOTC the ability to invalidate the license. Given that WOTC intends to attempt to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a on a technicality, I have no faith WOTC won't try it again here.

State that if any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable, the remainder of the license's provisions remain in effect. Also if the agreement or any provision is ruled illegal or unenforceable in a specific jurisdiction (e.g. country or state) the license and those provisions remain in effect for all other jurisdictions where they have not been ruled illegal or unenforceable.

Other feedback:

Section 3(a) - Strike language prohibiting creators from seeking injunctive relief.

Section 6(e) - Strike or rewrite to account for international laws. A creator in the US can't be expected to abide by laws in other countries and vice versa.

Section 7(b)(ii) - Expand time to cure to 180 days and better define what actions are sufficient to cure a breach.
Not Covering the VTT Stuff

This feedback doesn't cover the VTT policies described in the OGL 1.2 draft which are significant. See the feedback provided by Foundry for a better understanding of how this affects virtual tabletops.

J' espère qu'on aura ce même niveau de vigilance et d'exigence vis à vis des autres licences.

Je pense que ce sera le cas, avec l'expérience acquise avec la débâcle de l'OGL.

[sherinford]

Bon, finalement, je me suis fendu d'un petit article sur mon blog, pour essayer de résumer le cadre juridique.