So how do we respond?

[Clint_L]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

 

[Incenjucar]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

It doesn't hurt to be ready. I'm very much hoping this is all a big misunderstanding; I already boycott a lot of things and adding yet another company would not spark joy. But if they go full EA they go in the pile.

But hopefully this is all just silly chicken little nonsense and I'll be able to happily buy up all the 5.5E goodness and teach my sibling and their kids how to play and get back into DMing and designing and buying BG3 and maybe some of those Dicelings when the kiddos are big enough to not eat them.

Hopefully.

 

[mamba]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

I am all for talking about it, we can still decide to not follow through. Simply sitting tight just looks like accepting it or not caring.

 

[see]

(And again, this was me blindly assuming that the connection can be made. I personally don't even see who could revoke e.g. the MIT license.)

Under the legal theory presented in the first post of the thread "Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.", "unless the word 'irrevocable' appears in the license, the license can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason."

None of the licenses I listed have the word "irrevocable" in them, any more than the OGL has. (Neither does the GNU FDL, incidentally.) So, under that theory, anyone who has ever released material under any of those licenses can take back their material by revoking that license for their material.

So, that's the context for my very specific scenario -- "if we assume that WotC/Hasbro really and truly intends to try to revoke the OGL 1.0a with regard to already-released material in the case of people who have not agreed to the OGL 1.1".

We don't know that's the current situation, because, of course, "We still don't know exactly what's happening here, we've got partial reports based on leaks, plus various statements from lawyers."

But if we are in the world where WotC/Hasbro has decided to say, "The OGL 1.0a didn't say 'irrevocable', so you people using the SRD, RSRD, SRD5, or other Open Game Content derived from them (like Pathfinder or Level Up!) can't use that content under the OGL 1.0a anymore"?

Then, yes, all those specific software licenses are, in fact, also under threat, and the thing to do is legislative action to eliminate that sort of revocability.

If we're not in that world -- if WotC/Hasbro is not going to go around trying to shut down people from continuing to use OGC relelased under the OGL 1.0a under the OGL 1.0a -- then I don't see any reason to "respond" to WotC/Hasbro at all. They want to put the SRD for the new version under whatever license they like, that's their business, and we can ignore them like it's 2008 all over again.

 

[J.Quondam]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

A fair point, and I even said that in the wake of the last leak a few weeks ago.
But it's also important to realize that the current hubbub is occurring because the worst fears originating from that previous leak seem to be confirmed by legit journalists and industry insiders who have seen the text of the new license.

Since that's the case, it's important that WotC hears that a lot of people in the hobby will be unhappy if they follow through.

 

[mhd]

None of the licenses I listed have the word "irrevocable" in them, any more than the OGL has. (Neither does the GNU FDL, incidentally.) So, under that theory, anyone who has ever released material under any of those licenses can take back their material by revoking that license for their material.

So, that's the context for my very specific scenario

Again and again, IANAL, but that's truly specific, assuming that all the flack that first post got isn't true and this isn't just about the license being available but also applies to past material being released under said license. Which would be a very huge loop hole that somehow never occurred to one of the many, many lawyers employed by the tech industry. I do consider that highly unlikely. If it would be that easy to be so evil, Oracle would have done it already.

 

[Clint_L]

A fair point, and I even said that in the wake of the last leak a few weeks ago.
But it's also important to realize that the current hubbub is occurring because the worst fears originating from that previous leak seem to be confirmed by legit journalists and industry insiders who have seen the text of the new license.

Since that's the case, it's important that WotC hears that a lot of people in the hobby will be unhappy if they follow through.

That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.

I'm not going anywhere near a torch and pitchfork until I know what's what.

 

[Nikosandros]

That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.

The journalist from Gizmodo published excerpts from the leaked document that they received. The president of Kickstart confirmed that the royalties terms are exactly the same as in the leaked document. That's quite compelling evidence, in my opinion.

 

[Ondath]

That's not how I see what's happening. I am seeing responses to alleged leaks and partial information coming from folks who are on the outside looking in, and who often have a vested interest in controversy. But I'm not seeing a lot of information directly from first parties that are involved. I am very wary of second hand information and analysis, even when well-intentioned.

I'm not going anywhere near a torch and pitchfork until I know what's what.

You do know that a credentialed journalist got their hands on the entire OGL v1.1 and wrote a lengthy analysis where lawyers were consulted as well, right?

I know you've been skeptical of the news since the beginning, but at some point you have to admit that we have plenty of proof to show that our worries are well founded and that legitimate response is needed if we want WotC to change course.

 

[darjr]

I vote we respond with patience and wait to find out facts before rushing to judgment or talking about boycotts and stuff.

We have creators who were in these NDA meetings walking away from OGL content, or postponing projects, paying layers, vocally very not happy. Those are facts.

Edit: I am wrong here. The article in question has folks talking based upon the leaked information.
@Clint_L FYI.