Hi all,
Not really a normal blog post, but it's a good place to put my DnD OGL 1.2 survey response.
If you feel like going back through my other blog posts, I'm that'd make me feel dandy, but it's not required.
If any of my survey feels like something you want to use, feel free to put it in your survey response.
OPENDND!
There are numerous concerns with 1.2, and while it is a step in the right direction, here are issues that need to be corrected:
OGL 1.0a deauthorization: this clause needs better wording to protect the existing IPs and to protect new creations that use OGL1.0a content without requiring the original content be re-released under the OGL1.2. A grace period of not less than 6 months from the switch from 1.0a to 1.2 should be included to allow any in process works to be completed under the 1.0a license as long as the production process began before the introduction of 1.2
The included content licensed under Creative Commons should include not only mechanics, but images, class, race/species, and creatures, up to and including all content from the Players Handbook, Dungeon Masters Guide, and Monster Manual.
As written, the terms 'Perpetual' and Irrevokabke are unsatisfactory. Perpetual needs to be updated to prevent future changes. "Has no set end date" just indicates that you can end it whenever you like, which is unacceptable. Perpetual must mean that you cannot revoke it, or must give substantial notice to change or remove. Additionally, your definition of Irrevocable only applies to content published while the OGL 1.2 is in effect. Irrevocable must indicate that the OGL *cannot* be revoked, even for new content created after you have made an OGL 1.3, 1.4 etc.
Section 3a and 3b:
Allow lawsuits for Wizards infringement on 3rd party IP to result in injunctive damages in addition to monetary ones. If you infringe on someone's IP, but can still make and distribute the infringing content, then all that becomes, to you, is an inconvenient fine and the destruction of a livelihood, as you are able to market your copied content better than the original works.
Section 6e and 6f:
These clauses are too vague and give Wizards too much discretion to pull creator licenses without oversight or reasonable recourse. 'Will not violate the law in any way relating to this license" is an easily manipulated phrasing that sets up creators to be bullied by Wizards or any leadership based on personal preference and whims. Additionally, as laws can vary from State to State and Country to country. These inconsistent legal frameworks also open a Grey area for creators under protected legal classes to be harassed, bullied, and have their livelihoods impacted because of laws that are unjust or misused.
The same is generally true of "Hateful conduct".
What if a creator writes content aimed at making awareness about racial issues, or writes an adventure in which the struggles against racist or hateful acts is part of the content? Would the the portrayal of the acts being fought constitute content that could result in a license revocation?
You should not be in the position to wield that much power against creators livelihoods.
9d
Wizards should not retain the right to cancel the entire license because a portion is unenforceable. We cannot trust that Wizards will not bake in a fully illegal section, and use that to premise invalidating the entire license. If a section of OGL is found to be illegal or unenforceable, only that section will be subject to amendment to ensure it is legal and enforceable.
VTTs should be free to implement features as they see fit. If they can include mechanics in VTT play, then you have no business limiting how they express those as visual or programmatic elements. This is a blatant attempt to limit 3rd party VTTs from creating features that you yourself would actively want to implement. VTTs absolutely shouldn't be allowed to rip off your art or the code for your visual features, but you cannot own the idea of virtual features.
that to premise invalidating the entire license. If a section of OGL is found to be illegal or unenforceable, only that section will be subject to amendment to ensure it is legal and enforceable.
9g.
No. We will retain the right to a jury trial if that is deemed necessary to the enforcement of this license.
