# Forum > Gaming > Roleplaying Games > D&D 3e/3.5e/d20 >  Wizards Open Gaming Licence 1.1 Update

## pabelfly

I've been hearing reports that Wizards of the Coast is looking to revoke the Open Gaming Licence for d20 games (OGL 1.0) and update it with a new gaming licence, OGL 1.1

https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragon...ckdown-one-dd/

This isn't yet official (currently we only have access to leaked drafts of the licence), but I thought this would be worth discussing here since many of us make use of OGL-related product, and a few people on here actually produce the content, including but not limited to Pathfinder, Spheres, and a bunch of other lesser-known d20-licenced games.

The tl;dr as I understand it:
- Wizards wants to revoke the old licence and replace it in a very short time, the timeframe they originally gave was a week.
- Wizards wants to reserve the right to revoke the licence from people using the licence if they don't approve of their content.
- Wizards wants a cut of the money people make off their product when they make over $750K, as well as people that make video content based off the licence (Critical Role).
- Wizards wants to reserve the right to print content made off the licence, even if they themselves didn't make it

But I'm interested in seeing what other people think of all of this.

----------


## AnonymousPepper

IANAL, but my understanding is that any attempt at actually enforcing a revocation of OGL 1.0 will be illegal. Influential, in that the threat of legal action and its resultant expenses, even if Hasbro is doomed to eventually lose it, will have a chilling effect until someone - probably Paizo - calls their bluff and fights it all the way to a verdict, but illegal.

Still, I can't overstate just how big of a deal it will be in the mean time for just about everyone attempting to make content for older editions.

Naturally, this makes 1D&D dead in the water. It'll be 4e's GSL all over again, but quite possibly worse.

----------


## AssociateGreen

Also IANAL, but as far as I read around and understand, a publisher would need to actually use the OGL 1.1 thus triggering its Offer and Acceptance clause to unauthorize the use of OGL 1.0a. To make use of the OGL 1.1, you'd need to make use of material that is specific to it, which I'm guessing all of OneD&D is going to be. 

In other words, it seems like Pathfinder 1e, 5e third party, and the various OSR games employing OGL 1.0a are for the most part safe to continue to sell products and even develop more given that they refrain from using any stuff which comes out under the OGL 1.1 license. It's very similar to what WotC attempted to do when 4e came out with its GLC; as explained better than I could in the "Open Gaming License: A Brief History - Part 2" article on The Alexandrian. 

This of course could make OneD&D so unpalatable to established/well-regarded publishers of 5e third-party material, that they don't go forward with making new products specifically for that game. I don't know. 

There is some evidence this will be the case if we take a look back on the Internet Wayback machine at the FAQ for the OGL on WotC's old website. We can read:



> *Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?*
> 
> A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.


But this does come from a website they actively purged and may not be in line with current management's desires. We'll have to wait and see. But, I for one, am not particularly worried... at this time.

----------


## Crake

From what I understand of licensing, if you publicly release material under a particular license, once that has been done, it cannot be revoked. There has been precedence of this happening with pictures that were publicly shared, people took them for commercial use, and the original creator tried to sue, but the court ruled in favour of the defendant, as the pictures were made available for public use.

Now, of course, obligatory IANAL, but the 1.1 license can only apply to publications going forward, and cannot be retroactively changed for past content.

----------


## Darg

You can't simply revoke something that's been given. People who rely on that license are still obligated their dues. If they try to interfere with legal operation under the original license they become liable for damages.

As for claiming rights to copyrighted works that others have created without a signed contract would land them in really hot legal trouble. Like seriously hot. Like selling your baby hot.

The biggest issues will be these:




> Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a* perpetual*, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.


and 




> Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use *any* authoriz*ed* version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under *any version* of this License.


And no mention of requiring the updated version of the license to be copied even just after the mention of updating the license




> Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of *this* License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute.


Even if we say that WotC can Update the license, how far they can change it really depends on how far they can push without getting sued. That said, for all I know they might be changing the OGL for currently not OGL content.

One thing to be noted is that rules themselves are not protected under copyright. So things that are compatible with the rules or don't use the "fluff" are not in danger by any statute. An example of this would be making a video of me playing monopoly. If I don't show the game board or any of the pieces but still describe what is happening verbally, I wouldn't be violating copyright. That said, people can sue for anything and legal fees are expensive regardless of how frivolous the suit might be. The first step is almost always a cease and desist letter, especially when there are no damages to speak of. For all we know wizards might want to "chill" the D&D market so they can start producing their own versions of what people have created for themselves.

----------


## Crake

> The biggest issues will be these:
> 
> 
> 
> and 
> 
> 
> 
> And no mention of requiring the updated version of the license to be copied even just after the mention of updating the license


My expectation is that the 1.1 license will not be considered a new "version" of this license, but rather just one with a similar naming convention. Future works will be published strictly under the 1.1 license, which will likely not have that clause, but again, previous releases under the old license cannot be revoked.

----------


## Rynjin

I would take these rumors/supposed leaks with a grain of salt. From what I understand Hasbro would be incredibly foolish to make this move, because of how easy it is to make a d20 system that functions basically identically to their product without interacting with the OGL at all.

The OGL protects the product but not the concept. Kinda like having a copyright but no patent.

----------


## Darg

> My expectation is that the 1.1 license will not be considered a new "version" of this license, but rather just one with a similar naming convention. Future works will be published strictly under the 1.1 license, which will likely not have that clause, but again, previous releases under the old license cannot be revoked.


It the only version of this that actually makes sense. WotC would be fighting an uphill battle the whole way. If the courts grant an injunction and then they lose, the amount of liability over their heads would be mind boggling. As it's a single license it would likely be open to class action and as it's a contract it'll likely be expedited rather than delayed. The positives just don't seem to outweigh the negatives.

----------


## pabelfly

> I would take these rumors/supposed leaks with a grain of salt. From what I understand Hasbro would be incredibly foolish to make this move, because of how easy it is to make a d20 system that functions basically identically to their product without interacting with the OGL at all.
> 
> The OGL protects the product but not the concept. Kinda like having a copyright but no patent.


Logically I agree with you, but it's not as if Wizards of the Coast have been bastions of common sense of late. It's also in-line with Wizard's current thinking that the players are not spending enough and they're considering how to introduce extra payment options into the product. I'm hoping that this has been struck down by Hasbro's in-house lawyers and isn't going to see the light of day, but we'll see what happens.

----------


## Saintheart

> Logically I agree with you, but it's not as if Wizards of the Coast have been bastions of common sense of late. It's also in-line with Wizard's current thinking that the players are not spending enough and they're considering how to introduce extra payment options into the product. I'm hoping that this has been struck down by Hasbro's in-house lawyers and isn't going to see the light of day, but we'll see what happens.


I'm of a similar pessimistic view.  Hasbro/WOTC have stepped on rakes in this department twice before, let alone this one going for the hat-trick.

The first time was with the d20 trademark.  Remember that? There wasn't just the OGL, there was a specific d20 stamp that could be put on your books.  Old third party stuff had it, we're talking 2000-2001 or so.  And then they changed the terms and conditions of being able to sport the trademark, mainly (I am guessing) to stop the BoEF being published.  And when they did so, they basically forced a lot of third party publishers to pulp their books because they couldn't live with the Damoclean sword of an instantly-revocable trademark authorisation over their heads.  We're lucky that the OGL was still left, because that's exactly where everyone went from that point on.

The second time was fourth edition.  Similar situation to what we've got now: "gamers aren't spending enough money on third edition, third party publishers are cutting our lunch, and (quite literally) if we don't get D&D up to become a property worth $50 million to Hasbro, our marketing, development, and publishing budgets are cut or outright removed.  What do we do? Hire Mike Mearls and make fourth edition, which requires the consumers to Buy Stuff from Only Us and makes it practically impossible for a third party publisher to legally produce stuff that works with our rules."

That decision (aside from 4e being a good tac combat system but a hopeless RPG) was what created Pathfinder.  Because the OGL still existed.  And WOTC had ****ed off enough fans who were subscribed to Paizo's Dragon and Dungeon mailing lists to make sticking with third edition an option.

If OGL 1.1 happens, then - _if_ it forbids _new_ creation of products without Hasbro's approval - Paizo's future 5e *and* any 3e products are dead in the water.  As said the old stuff before OGL 1.1 will _probably_ be okay for legal or practical reasons, but unless WOTC comes out with something absolutely beautiful in DBox One - and they won't - this'll really kill the userbase.  Because fourth edition should have told them exactly what happens when you try to take players' optionality off them.

It's a good point that _rulesets_ as such can't be copyrighted, and thus something compatible with a ruleset can't be easily sued for breach of copyright (I suspect this was a big reason Kingdoms of Kalamar was never challenged as a setting back in the TSR days, despite it openly saying it was compatible with AD&D rules) but having to write whole rulebooks and taking a fine tooth comb through them to ensure you don't detonate a legal bomb by a misplaced word isn't exactly conducive to third party publisher production.

----------


## pabelfly

> f OGL 1.1 happens, then - _if_ it forbids _new_ creation of products without Hasbro's approval - Paizo's future 5e *and* any 3e products are dead in the water.


Pathfinder 2e also uses the OGL too, so if the licence change is true, Paizo is completely screwed. They'll have to pay the fees that Wizards wants them to pay or lawyer up and fight all of this in court.

----------


## Saintheart

Slightly tangential note: if you've got stuff on DMGuild, I'd be looking around for a different server.  TheAlexandrian.net has a good history on the OGL, and quoting from it ...




> In terms of community content, however, the SRD and the OGL arent the whole story for 5th Edition. Theres also the Dungeon Masters Guild.
> 
> To understand the origins of the DMs Guild, we need to go back in time to the early days of 3rd Edition. During this time, a company called RPGNow had signed an agreement with Wizards of the Coast to sell D&D PDFs. This included PDF versions of older books, too, going all the way back to the original 1974 game.
> 
> RPGnow would eventually merge with DriveThruRPG to form a company called OneBookShelf, which continued selling the D&D PDFs.
> 
> When Wizards started yanking all their external licenses with the release of 4th Edition, however, this included OneBookShelfs license. This was, rather infamously, done without any prior announcement and included preventing people who had previously purchased the books from downloading them. (Remember what I said about alienating large chunks of their fanbase?)
> 
> In 2012, with leadership changing in the wake of 4th Editions failure and the corporate strategy switching from No One Shall Play With Our Toys to YAll Come Back Now, Ya Hear?, OneBookShelf was able to negotiate a new license, launching D&D Classics in 2013 to once again offer PDFs from all previous editions of D&D.
> ...

----------


## Ashtagon

The big danger for the industry is that WotC finds a small fish who is properly using the older ogl but unknowingly (or perhaps technically knowingly, but intentionally avoiding the use of because they know their plans are okay with the old ogl but not the new ogl), and then takes them to court. They follow that court case through to the bitter end, taking advantage of the little guy's lack of resources to gain proper legal representation in order to steamroller the court into giving their desired verdict, and then use that court case to say there is established legal precedent when going after the big guys.

----------


## martixy

> Pathfinder 2e also uses the OGL too, so if the licence change is true, Paizo is completely screwed. They'll have to pay the fees that Wizards wants them to pay or lawyer up and fight all of this in court.


Paizo's use of the OGL in 2e will probably be the only saving grace if worse comes to worst.
Because it will force them to fight this, for everyone's sake.
(They have my sympathies, but it's unlikely anyone else would step up otherwise.)

----------


## Saintheart

> The big danger for the industry is that WotC finds a small fish who is properly using the older ogl but unknowingly (or perhaps technically knowingly, but intentionally avoiding the use of because they know their plans are okay with the old ogl but not the new ogl), and then takes them to court. They follow that court case through to the bitter end, taking advantage of the little guy's lack of resources to gain proper legal representation in order to steamroller the court into giving their desired verdict, and then use that court case to say there is established legal precedent when going after the big guys.


I don't know that there's much chance of that, mainly because the little guy's own lack of resources will force said little guy to settle on generous terms to Hasbro, well before it gets to a verdict and therefore well before it gets to an established precedent.

Fact is that most 3PP in this space - outside maybe Paizo and Green Ronin - are minnows.  If it becomes a fight between Paizo and Hasbro, _that_ will set a chilling precedent if it goes Hasbro's way.

And let's not forget Hasbro has a certain amount of risk in this as well.  Court cases are by definition draw out for months if not years on end, and they generate news stories.  Reddit, Youtube, ENworld, here, anywhere D&D is discussed, it'd be a constant topic of conversation even with injunctions slapping down online publicity, you just can't contain that sort of information absent a serious criminal case.  Unless Hasbro is _really_ determined to _entirely_ scorch-earth their fanbase and start again - which I somewhat doubt - then it's not likely a court case would get all the way to trial, it would be settled, or Paizo just does a deal with the devil and gets a bit of a discount on royalties or something.

And let's keep some optimism to it: Hasbro still takes risks if it tries to run this to trial, because whatever their lawyers say, there is a real tension here between WOTC's "right" to its IP ... and the explicit wording in the OGL 1.0 that it could not be revoked.  That, according to the guy who had a massive hand in writing it, was deliberate and intended specifically so if WOTC went under, D&D could still be played in some other form.

But I still prefer my pessimism.  Yes, corporate Hasbro and WOTC really _are_ this stupid, they've done this before to other franchises they hold, and WOTC has been this stupid only 1 edition ago.  And unless Hasbro/WOTC has the absolutely stupidest PR team on Earth, the fact they are refusing to confirm or deny whether the leaked document is accurate speaks volumes to one or more of these propositions:
(1) It's the genuine article and that's the form it's going to take, and they don't want to admit it until they have to;
(2) It's the genuine article and Hasbro is not commenting simply because they don't think they'll cause much damage by leaving the speculation open, i.e. they care so little about the publicity it'll create that they think it's acceptable to just not comment and let it "die down" by itself.

But taking a look around joints like ENWorld (which still has a lot of third edition names still active) and corroboration from joints like Kickstarter which made a couple of tweets about it, I think unfortunately this is the real deal.  I think they really are going to issue an OGL of the kind we're talking about and at least leave a Damoclean sword over any 3PP publisher who wants to keep producing _new_ 3e or 5e books.  As said, continuing to print stuff that's already out there under OGL 1.0 I think it safe, but whether, say, Paizo wants to create a new adventure path for 3e, 5e, or even PF2e is something else.

----------


## martixy

> the explicit wording in the OGL 1.0 that it could not be revoked.


1.0 or 1.0a?

And where is this wording? Ctrl-F "irrevocable" fails. The default is "revocable" (or so a youtube lawyer said).

----------


## northernbard80

I'm not pleased with this development; so many YouTube videos have sprang up about the OGL revisions.

Should this affect the older versions of DND (1.0, 2.0, 3.x, etc) and it is implied that it will, I wonder how it can be enforced.

WOTC enforcing the new OGL could simply drive gamers playing & producing new material for the older games underground; they'd have to be more sneaky and more secretive.

If WOTC should actually sue or prosecute violators, that could backfire and turn into a public relations disaster.

----------


## Saintheart

> 1.0 or 1.0a?
> 
> And where is this wording? Ctrl-F "irrevocable" fails. The default is "revocable" (or so a youtube lawyer said).


1.0a is over here.  'irrevocable' isn't in there, but 




> 4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a *perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.*
> 
> ...
> 
> 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. *You may use any authorized version of this License* to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content *originally distributed under any version of this License*.



Clause 9 gives WOTC its argument: it can make the 1.0a version an unauthorized version of the License, which kills capacity to copy, modify, or distribute OGC, no matter what version of the OGL it appeared under.

Clause 4 gives third party publishers their argument: the License granted is perpetual, which preserves at least their right to keep on publishing stuff created under the OGL as it stood before WOTC unauthorized that version.  And they argue that clause 9 has to be interpreted in context as allowing WOTC to update the License, not override the perpetual grant of the licence itself either formally or in effect.

----------


## Darg

The license can be revoked. Period. Copyright holders hold all rights unless explicitly given away. The problem is that the OGL is a contract with the public that tells you it works in perpetuity and it doesn't tell you that you must agree to any updated version. Meaning any earlier version is still a valid contract. An entity who relies on this contract detrimentally still has the contractual allowance in perpetuity. Meaning if wizards pulls the contract and harms them they would be liable for damages themselves. Meaning if they do revoke, they put the damoclean sword over their own head as well. 3rd party publishers have the stronger case, period. If they band together and pool resources it's highly likely they could easily protect themselves. A judge would be very unlikely to give injunctive relief on the basis that historically operation was allowed and so it would be unlikely to be found damage would be irreparable.




> Clause 9 gives WOTC its argument: it can make the 1.0a version an unauthorized version of the License, which kills capacity to copy, modify, or distribute OGC, no matter what version of the OGL it appeared under.


The problem is that clause 9 says that you can do these things with any version that has ever been authorized. Wizards has a very steep hill to climb if they actually pull the rug. At best it's leaving them with the ability to prevent new things going forward.

----------


## Saintheart

> The license can be revoked. Period. Copyright holders hold all rights unless explicitly given away. The problem is that the OGL is a contract with the public that tells you it works in perpetuity and it doesn't tell you that you must agree to any updated version. Meaning any earlier version is still a valid contract. An entity who relies on this contract detrimentally still has the contractual allowance in perpetuity. Meaning if wizards pulls the contract and harms them they would be liable for damages themselves. Meaning if they do revoke, they put the damoclean sword over their own head as well. 3rd party publishers have the stronger case, period. If they band together and pool resources it's highly likely they could easily protect themselves. A judge would be very unlikely to give injunctive relief on the basis that historically operation was allowed and so it would be unlikely to be found damage would be irreparable.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is that clause 9 says that you can do these things with any version that has ever been authorized. Wizards has a very steep hill to climb if they actually pull the rug. At best it's leaving them with the ability to prevent new things going forward.


I don't necessarily disagree with any of that.  Another possibility is that they're creating an OGL 1.1 as a means to twist the arms of large 3PP publishers like Paizo: OGL 1.1 only applies to DBox One.  If you want to publish _anything_ in DBox One Land, you have to agree to terminate the contract under the old OGL 1.0a.  That is, force them to make a choice: you either publish works for DBox One, or you publish works for the Dirty OGL that has foiled our plans for the past 15 years, but not both.  Make your choice.

Problem being that you'd think there's enough institutional memory to say the choice is not going to go the way of DBox One for a decent slab of the playerbase.  That is, another 3.5/4e split.  It's probably against board rules to post up the James Franco "First Time?" meme here, but it seems to apply :)

----------


## AnonymousPepper

Re: people saying Hasbro can _just do this_: here's a take from a contract and general lawyer on the matter.

The tl;dw is that given the age of the license and the terms under which it has historically operated (i.e. all parties have treated it as if it were irrevocable for 23 years now), the clear implications of it being a perpetual license with commentary both in and outside of the license heavily implying irrevocability, the stake of all parties involved in it continuing, the absurd rarity of a completely revocable yet simultaneously perpetual license, and the general holding, contrary to what you may have heard, that perpetual usually - not always, but usually - does mean irrevocable, no, this does not bode well for Hasbro attempting to revoke the old license.

Further, even if they can get one particular party on infringement on a technicality, the rest of the sub-holders wouldn't be affected. It's not a severability clause, I forget the actual term for what it is in this specific case, but the effect is similar.

This will not stop them from trying, of course. They're a bunch of greedy megacapitalists, of course they'll try. They're not a group that takes being told "no" very well.

----------


## spectralphoenix

PF2E isn't actually all that close to 3rd edition anymore. Assuming WotC isn't trying to stop them from selling books that have already been written, I'm wondering if the easiest route for Paizo would simply be to take the d20 system logo off the books, maybe rename a few things, and call it an independent system.

Presumably the DMGuild and the various little publishers pushing material that actually depends on D&D would be in a lot more trouble.

----------


## Zanos

This is probably the worst thing WOTC has ever done if the final printing of the OGL is in line with this leak, which seems legitimate.

1. OGL 1.1 is specifically designed to limit the growth of competitors to never become threats. A 25% share of _gross revenue_ over 750k effectively caps the size of any OGL publications by 3rd party companies, since the profit margins in this business are typically less than 10%. Operating over 750k in revenue, not profit, would result in actively taking losses. This would likely kill Paizo as a company, since their two biggest products use OGL 1.0.
2. Kickstarter has confirmed that WOTC has already reached out and is set to automatically take 20% off of any D&D related kickstarters over 750k, which will likely kill any large Kickstarter projects. Again, profit margins are slim, so people will start _losing money_ if WOTC is taking 20% of their kickstarter funds before costs are considered.
3. The OGL now covers _only_ books and static electronic material. Podcasts, songs, *VTTs* and video games, among others, are specifically excluded. This will likely have a massive impact on VTTs, which will need either a custom agreement with WOTC or will not be able to ship with any OGL material. This is likely being done specifically to kill competing VTTs with WOTCs VTT offering, which releases next year.
4. Revocation of 1.0 I'm not sure is actually legal, but that matters little given the size of Hasbro compared to the people who have interest in fighting this. I'm not sure to what extent Hasbro intends to go after material that's already been published, but it certainly bodes ill for third party publishers and any D&D adjacent content creators. Whether this will affect any 3.5 material I really don't know, and there's a good chance that WOTC doesn't know either, because they probably don't care.

----------


## Stormwolf69

Why do I think this is going to wind up in the courts?

----------


## Rynjin

There's basically no way Hasbro's lawyers are incompetent enough to let this go to court even if Wizards' are.

----------


## pabelfly

> There's basically no way Hasbro's lawyers are incompetent enough to let this go to court even if Wizards' are.


Seems strange to trust our hopes on a multinational corporation's lawyers, but here we are

----------


## AnonymousPepper

> There's basically no way Hasbro's lawyers are incompetent enough to let this go to court even if Wizards' are.


Other way around. This is Hasbro's corporate greed pushing their grubby, scummy, leeching hands into everything they can get their hands on and ruin. They seek to reap where they do not sow, not caring for the consequences.

This also means that anyone that's left at WotC that isn't a raging money-addled lunatic is gone or keeping their head down. There's nothing they can do about it even if they want to.

I have strong feelings about corporations.

----------


## Saintheart

It's time to start posting memes on the subject.



Fun notation I saw on Twitter: good old KOTOR published by Disney uses d20 Modern SRD and OGL 1.0.  I'm sure Disney will be totally fine with signing over that entire property to Hasbro as a sub-licence for free forever!

Also, doing some surfing of the newsbreaks this morning - looks like even if it's not fully accurate a big bunch of 3PP for 5e are already taking steps.  Not to sue.  But to outright abandon 5e and indeed WOTC IPs altogether.  Because - as I suspected - the prospect of spending millions fighting Hasbro _even if you're right_ doesn't exactly enthrall small independent publishers.  Comicbook.com is saying they've talked to 20 publishers who're either pulling out or putting their products on hold to await 1.1 being official.  And it doesn't take a lot of surfing to find declarations (DM Dave) that it's over for them and WOTC and they're going to build their own stuff.

Another opinion I've seen says the odds are good the big 3PPs have already been approached to cut deals with the devil, and their silence indicates it's been done.  The biggest signifier for that is Kickstarter letting slip that they managed to negotiate a discount on royalties for creators through their platform.

(I mean, the ****ing OGL 1.1 is 9,000 words, 10 pages.  If that has to be printed in every 3PP product that itself is a cost increase, because it's 10 more pages per product.)



EDIT: Oh, and amusing if it amounts to confirmation by omission, the official Wizards DND Discord server briefly tried to suppress all discussion of the leaked document.  Why? 



... wait, if it's an "illegally obtained" piece of IP, doesn't that mean that ... um ... it's accurate?

"No! No! I mean--"



... except it's either one or the other, and since you have no real reason to disguise it if it's (1), it therefore is (2).



EDIT: One last horrible thought and then I'll shut up: 

Does Rich use any OGL anywhere in his products?

By which I also mean - does the forum he looks after and host count as a body covered by the incoming OGL?

I mean, the homebrew forum is pleasant enough to wander through, but it'll be even more pleasant if any of it ever shows up verbatim in a WOTC textbook with no attribution or pay to the homebrewer.  Hey, I can always dream, maybe the DBox One version of Red Hand of Doom will have all my handbook thread copypasted into the back, lol! :)

----------


## redking

WotC trying to use theoretical optimisation in the law. 

"Authorised version" should mean any version that was ever authorised by WotC in the past. Now WotC is trying to change the definition.

By the way, if the new "OGL" (it isn't open) is rubber stamped by the courts, anyone that made electronic material, like the Pathfinder CRPGs, are in serious jeopardy. 

For example, if this new OGL is allowed to abolish the previous OGLs by the courts, then WotC will end up owning Paizo and every other industry player that used the OGL. 

For this reason, I doubt it will fly in the courts. I do expect, however, that big players like Matt Mercer will turncoat and come to a separate agreement with WotC.

----------


## Malphegor

> I mean, the homebrew forum is pleasant enough to wander through, but it'll be even more pleasant if any of it ever shows up verbatim in a WOTC textbook with no attribution or pay to the homebrewer.  Hey, I can always dream, maybe the DBox One version of Red Hand of Doom will have all my handbook thread copypasted into the back, lol! :)


IANAL but I suspect that it would fall as being akin to fanfiction which Mostly comes under fair use stuff. People *probably* should be legally adding boilerplate saying this stuff is covered under the ogl and some stuff mentioned may be blah blah blah property of wotc, but theres so many posts and people generally would assume yeah this randos not stealing the concept of base attack bonus and mindflayers. Whether thats a valid legal defence I dunno

----------


## Ramza00

The irony of all this (a nice little wrinkle)

Is so many people learn to think like programmers or become lawyers due to DnD and the 3rd edition of the rules, d20 in general, and the OGL 1.0 / 1.0a.

It has been 23 years.  Our brains have been shaped by this.  Including "arguing with the Boss" aka the Dungeon Master... and now a new over-deity Dungeon Master comes here in our "Forgotten Realms" and tries to dethrone Ao ... how does people think this is going to end up?  Sounds like a good story  :Small Sigh:

----------


## Malphegor

> The irony of all this (a nice little wrinkle)
> 
> Is so many people learn to programmers or lawyers due to DnD and the 3rd edition of te rules, d20 in general, and the OGL 1.0 / 1.0a.
> 
> It has been 23 years.  Our brains have been shaped by this.  Including "arguing with the Boss" aka the Dungeon Master... and now a new over-deity Dungeon Master comes here in our "Forgotten Realms" and tries to dethrone Ao ... how does people think this is going to end up?  Sounds like a good story


Lol yeah the optics of this doesnt look good from a hero mindset

----------


## Darg

> EDIT: One last horrible thought and then I'll shut up: 
> 
> Does Rich use any OGL anywhere in his products?
> 
> By which I also mean - does the forum he looks after and host count as a body covered by the incoming OGL?
> 
> I mean, the homebrew forum is pleasant enough to wander through, but it'll be even more pleasant if any of it ever shows up verbatim in a WOTC textbook with no attribution or pay to the homebrewer.  Hey, I can always dream, maybe the DBox One version of Red Hand of Doom will have all my handbook thread copypasted into the back, lol! :)


Under previous court precedent, platforms are not responsible for content they don't have a direct hand in. By extension they wouldn't have ownership of that content, just the data there of. Therefore if a forum didn't care about posting pirated material, they're protected under law as long as they take action on request.

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> Other way around. This is Hasbro's corporate greed pushing their grubby, scummy, leeching hands into everything they can get their hands on and ruin. They seek to reap where they do not sow, not caring for the consequences.
> []


isnt the company owning Warhammer40k trying to do a similar thing?
Cashing in on any tangential content created. 
To the point where the troops are no longer called Space Marine because that term cant be copyrighted?

----------


## Psyren

> You can't simply revoke something that's been given. People who rely on that license are still obligated their dues. If they try to interfere with legal operation under the original license they become liable for damages.
> 
> As for claiming rights to copyrighted works that others have created without a signed contract would land them in really hot legal trouble. Like seriously hot. Like selling your baby hot.
> 
> The biggest issues will be these:
> 
> 
> 
> and 
> ...


The tricky part is that "perpetual" may not be seen as the same thing as "irrevocable" by whatever court eventually ends up having to hear this thing.




> The big danger for the industry is that WotC finds a small fish who is properly using the older ogl but unknowingly (or perhaps technically knowingly, but intentionally avoiding the use of because they know their plans are okay with the old ogl but not the new ogl), and then takes them to court. They follow that court case through to the bitter end, taking advantage of the little guy's lack of resources to gain proper legal representation in order to steamroller the court into giving their desired verdict, and then use that court case to say there is established legal precedent when going after the big guys.


It's possible due to Reliance that the "big guys" existing products under the OGL 1.0 will be safe, even if that OGL gets revoked. Thus PF1, PF2, Starfinder, and even more niche offerings such as OSRIC et al. could be safe. But if WotC succeeds, any new games published afterwards may not be.

----------


## Saintheart

> The tricky part is that "perpetual" may not be seen as the same thing as "irrevocable" by whatever court eventually ends up having to hear this thing.


Yep.  If I was in WOTC's shoes I'd be saying 'perpetual' in the context of the document itself means 'perpetual as in uninterrupted, not perpetual as un-endable.'  I'd be saying "Judge, it doesn't matter what Ryan Dancey and now Monte Cook are saying about what they meant when the OGL was first created, you only have to look within the document itself to adequately work out what its terms mean, and in that context and normal legal usage (maybe?) perpetual just means a period of time that can't be determined as at the time of writing, not perpetual as in eternal or interminable."

And the fact there are opposing opinions even between different lawyers on this thing - as opposed to a massive chorus of 'lol no' from everyone, as you might expect on the question of whether a contract can exist without an offer and acceptance - says that the point *is* arguable in a real way, which is to say, controversial rather than settled.

But again: the legality of it may well be moot.  A small 3PP publisher if hit with a C&D letter from a corporation with billions of dollars if not billions of actual lawyers behind it :) is much more likely to just fold than try to fight something like this.  In courtrooms, the process itself is a potent punishment or disincentive in itself.





> It's possible due to Reliance that the "big guys" existing products under the OGL 1.0 will be safe, even if that OGL gets revoked. Thus PF1, PF2, Starfinder, and even more niche offerings such as OSRIC et al. could be safe. But if WotC succeeds, any new games published afterwards may not be.


Hence why the 1.1, if true, might well be part of a strategy to force Paizo to make a choice: you can either make new stuff for DBox One, or you can keep on printing your dusty old 3e and 5e stuff, but you can't do both.  Choose.  Because if you keep printing under the old OGL, we are not going to give you a license to produce things for DBox One.  You took a bet on our stupidity and the loyalty of your fanbase once before, let's play double or nothing.

----------


## JoshuaZ

> Yep.  If I was in WOTC's shoes I'd be saying 'perpetual' in the context of the document itself means 'perpetual as in uninterrupted, not perpetual as un-endable.'  I'd be saying "Judge, it doesn't matter what Ryan Dancey and now Monte Cook are saying about what they meant when the OGL was first created, you only have to look within the document itself to adequately work out what its terms mean, and in that context and normal legal usage (maybe?) perpetual just means a period of time that can't be determined as at the time of writing, not perpetual as in eternal or interminable."
> .


Not a lawyer. My understanding that in standard American contract law, if they had meant that they would have written "indefinite" not perpetual. 

(To be clear: I agree with your general analysis. This is just a comment about this specific language.)

----------


## redking

> The tricky part is that "perpetual" may not be seen as the same thing as "irrevocable" by whatever court eventually ends up having to hear this thing.


The text could not have contained the word "irrevocable" in any event, as the license is revocable in the case of the breach. That said, in the absence of a breach, the licence is perpetual. If it comes to a lawsuit, all the commentary related to the OGL produced over the years will appear as documentary evidence in court. And ALL of it goes against the current assertions of WotC.

----------


## Psyren

> The text could not have contained the word "irrevocable" in any event, as the license is revocable in the case of the breach. That said, in the absence of a breach, the licence is perpetual. If it comes to a lawsuit, all the commentary related to the OGL produced over the years will appear as documentary evidence in court. And ALL of it goes against the current assertions of WotC.


That is certainly the hope of those challenging WotC's intentions, yes.




> Not a lawyer. My understanding that in standard American contract law, if they had meant that they would have written "indefinite" not perpetual.


What they "meant" could very well end up being irrelevant - in either direction.

----------


## Kitsuneymg

> Paizo's use of the OGL in 2e will probably be the only saving grace if worse comes to worst.
> Because it will force them to fight this, for everyone's sake.
> (They have my sympathies, but it's unlikely anyone else would step up otherwise.)


Knights if the Old Republic uses the OGL. Disney will summon satan to eat Hasbros lawyers if they try to lay any claim to anything, even just the ability to see Disneys books based on anniversary sales of the game on steam.


Edit. Since the OGL has gone on so long, and since the section on termination doesnt mention updates, and since WotC has promised publicly that changes to the OGL could just result in people using the 1.0a license, and since theres no legal definition of authorized, it is highly likely that WotC eill be forced via estoppel to allow old OGL content to continue using 1.0a. Its the same exact reason they arent printing reserve list magic cards. Because they be said it publicly and for a long time, (the court could find that) it constitutes a word of mouth contract, regardless of written records.

----------


## Psyren

I don't think old content is the problem though, it's new content. Telling Paizo they can sell PF1 and PF2 for as long as they want isn't going to be much solace if the broader market ends up moving on to 1.1 and 1DnD.

----------


## spectralphoenix

> I don't think old content is the problem though, it's new content. Telling Paizo they can sell PF1 and PF2 for as long as they want isn't going to be much solace if the broader market ends up moving on to 1.1 and 1DnD.


I don't know - I could see it causing another mass exodus to PF/PF2. If I was running a midsize company - big enough that I might need to worry about that 750k limit or WotC deciding I was cutting into their sales - I would probably go make content for Pathfinder instead of signing on to the OGL 1.1. And PF2 has diverged pretty heavily from the SRD, if Paizo ever decides to make PF3, I suspect they could do away with any dependence on WotC owned copyrights.

Harder to say about smaller creators. I would guess it depends on how much WotC actually uses that clause about being able to take stuff for themselves.

----------


## Psyren

> I don't know - I could see it causing another mass exodus to PF/PF2. If I was running a midsize company - big enough that I might need to worry about that 750k limit or WotC deciding I was cutting into their sales - I would probably go make content for Pathfinder instead of signing on to the OGL 1.1. And PF2 has diverged pretty heavily from the SRD, if Paizo ever decides to make PF3, I suspect they could do away with any dependence on WotC owned copyrights.
> 
> Harder to say about smaller creators. I would guess it depends on how much WotC actually uses that clause about being able to take stuff for themselves.


It's possible - but Paizo isn't the one continuing the most popular system this time around WotC is. If 1.0 is upheld they could certainly do that with 5e, but I expect most PF2 fans would rather play that than 5.1.

----------


## Darg

> The tricky part is that "perpetual" may not be seen as the same thing as "irrevocable" by whatever court eventually ends up having to hear this thing.


I mentioned in another post that it's very revocable as they are the copyright holder. The problem comes with detrimental reliance upon a previously agreed upon contract, which this is. The original contract states that the license holder would have this contract in perpetuity.

Let's put it in an easier to understand scenario. I sign a contract to employ a laborer for 20 years with no termination clause outside of bad faith. This laborer moves to be near their new place of residence and now has a mortgage, home insurance, car payments for transportation, etc. 5 years down the road I terminate the contract just 'cause. This laborer is now suffering damages because I am no longer holding up my end of the contract by not paying them. They are detrimentally reliant upon my payments to survive. They lose their home and car because they could no longer pay for them. The contract is there to bind me into paying my fair share for that which I requested and bind the other to accomplish my request so that we both can rely on legal enforcement.

Due to the long standing nature of the OGL contract, it would be extremely unlikely that there would ever be an issued injunction. And a company like Paizo has an extremely strong case for detrimental reliance. The amount of reparations decided by the court could swing in favor of penalizing WotC. Even if they can eat tens of millions in losses from court battles, it would also set precedent for similar cases making it not worth the legal trouble of actually taking it to court. The court does have the power to say that they can't actually revoke the license because to do so would cause irreparable harm (no amount of money could serve as restitution). So there is risk in divestiture of their rights to take things all the way to court. It really is in WotC's best interest to play nice to an extent. They don't actually want to go to court if they don't have to because of all the risk. It's much better to simply scare and settle.

----------


## Zanos

> Yep.  If I was in WOTC's shoes I'd be saying 'perpetual' in the context of the document itself means 'perpetual as in uninterrupted, not perpetual as un-endable.'  I'd be saying "Judge, it doesn't matter what Ryan Dancey and now Monte Cook are saying about what they meant when the OGL was first created, you only have to look within the document itself to adequately work out what its terms mean, and in that context and normal legal usage (maybe?) perpetual just means a period of time that can't be determined as at the time of writing, not perpetual as in eternal or interminable."


I don't think it really has any legal grounds to stand on, because when the wording is unclear, the Courts will look to both the intention of the creators, supporting documentation, and actual usage, all three of which support that the license isn't revocable. We've got Dancey and Cook saying it wasn't intended to be Recovable, we've got the FAQ for the OGL implying heavily that if WOTC does something you don't like with the license, you can use an older one(ability to 'de-authorize' a previous license, which is not an established legal construct, would make this pointless), and the actual practice of multiple partners and WOTC treating the license as non-revocable for over 20 years.

That said, who can actually afford a court fight with Hasbro?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> Yep.  If I was in WOTC's shoes I'd be saying 'perpetual' in the context of the document itself means 'perpetual as in uninterrupted, not perpetual as un-endable.'  I'd be saying "Judge, it doesn't matter what Ryan Dancey and now Monte Cook are saying about what they meant when the OGL was first created, you only have to look within the document itself to adequately work out what its terms mean, and in that context and normal legal usage (maybe?) perpetual just means a period of time that can't be determined as at the time of writing, not perpetual as in eternal or interminable."


The key word in terms of section 9 is authorized, as that is a past participle, it is grammatically ambiguous in its semantic range (a license having gone through a process of authorization or a license that has a status of authorization). The most straightforward reading would tend to agree with Dancey and Cook in this context, because it implies more than one license could be authorized, because no statement is made about deauthorization and because of symetry to the following participle distributed (the point of the term being to exclude a draft copy that might be leaked buy wasn't actually issued). 

If we go with fairly traditional views of literary interpretation, if there is an ambiguity we would go to any author's comments to deal with intent. So if we are looking for a fair reading, the license is irrevocable.

The problem is, in part because of early 20th century pragmaticism (Dewey and Wilson) and postmodernism (Fouchault and Derrida), many areas of legal interpretation seem less concerned with the authorial intent than what can be construed from the reader's response as an interpretational standard. So I suspect the WOTC case will amount to arguing against anything like authorial intent for pro forma concerns regarding legal jargon. Not a lawyer but intent is poison for their case.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I don't think it really has any legal grounds to stand on, because when the wording is unclear, the Courts will look to both the intention of the creators, supporting documentation, and actual usage, all three of which support that the license isn't revocable. We've got Dancey and Cook saying it wasn't intended to be Recovable, we've got the FAQ for the OGL implying heavily that if WOTC does something you don't like with the license, you can use an older one(ability to 'de-authorize' a previous license, which is not an established legal construct, would make this pointless), and the actual practice of multiple partners and WOTC treating the license as non-revocable for over 20 years.
> 
> That said, who can actually afford a court fight with Hasbro?


Someone mentioned somewhere that this might have ramifications for software developers so there may be outside groups helping to fund this point. But some class action lawyers get paid after a settlement. A class action lawsuit in the millions may have a lawfirm willing to take the case on the potential for a cut of the settlement.

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> Someone mentioned somewhere that this might have ramifications for software developers [].


wasnt software excluded from the OGL?
I remember Paizo bending over backwards to NOT base Pathfinder Online on the d20 rules for that reason.

----------


## martixy

> _Rules lawyers try their hand at real law._

It'll be interesting comparing the predictions and interpretations of this thread to the actual outcome.

----------


## Darg

> > _Rules lawyers try their hand at real law._
> 
> It'll be interesting comparing the predictions and interpretations of this thread to the actual outcome.


Actual outcome is that most get chilled out of the market and Hasbro backs down or settles out of court for the rest. They wouldn't be willing to get it all the way there when giving these leftovers basically the same contract, but with exclusivity, would fulfill the main agenda in the first place: retraction of the OGL on the broader market. If no one uses the OGL anymore, for practical purposes it no longer exists.

----------


## Bohandas

This probably isn't legal, but I wouldn't be surprised if it were tried. Copyright trolling and aggressively selling out seem to be the order of the day these days.

EDIT:
I mean for society in general, not for WotC specificalky

----------


## Psyren

> Actual outcome is that most get chilled out of the market and Hasbro backs down or settles out of court for the rest. They wouldn't be willing to get it all the way there when giving these leftovers basically the same contract, but with exclusivity, would fulfill the main agenda in the first place: retraction of the OGL on the broader market. If no one uses the OGL anymore, for practical purposes it no longer exists.


What I think will happen is that WotC will release a version of 1.1 that tones down or omits a number of the provisions found in the current "leak." They will then go ahead with attempting to deauthorize/revoke 1.0a. 

The real excitement will come when somebody flips them off and publishes something new under 1.0a anyway, they sue, and it reaches trial instead of being settled out of court.




> wasnt software excluded from the OGL?
> I remember Paizo bending over backwards to NOT base Pathfinder Online on the d20 rules for that reason.


IIRC the current OGL doesn't expressly exclude any medium, which is part of the problem (from WotC's perspective at any rate.)

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> IIRC the current OGL doesn't expressly exclude any medium, which is part of the problem (from WotC's perspective at any rate.)


but it would also make any code fair game and legal to copy and change for anyone else.
Meaning if I publish a game using the OGL (rather than a paid D&D licence from WotC) any other game developer can take that code and modify it.


My guess is WotC will give developers the choice to either 
- keep publishing under 1.0a exclusively
- or switch to 1.1 material, also exclusively

third party devs can take a bet that 6e material is going to flop as badly as 4e, or help 6e not flopping due to enough of them switching to 6e.

This is the laziest (cheapest) approach if it works and looks best as far as PR is concerned. (they can reserve the bullying for in case it doesnt) 

personally I would bet on 6e flopping for the same reason that I think 4e flopped: Too many players thinking its not required to play the game.

----------


## Darg

> but it would also make any code fair game and legal to copy and change for anyone else.
> Meaning if I publish a game using the OGL (rather than a paid D&D licence from WotC) any other game developer can take that code and modify it.


Not quite true. Code is already fair game for the most part (outside cases where the code itself is the creative function). How american law and other jurisdictions got around that is that bypassing DRM is illegal. So all you have to do is put DRM on it as the license doesn't require you to keep it protection free.

----------


## spectralphoenix

> Not quite true. Code is already fair game for the most part (outside cases where the code itself is the creative function). How american law and other jurisdictions got around that is that bypassing DRM is illegal. So all you have to do is put DRM on it as the license doesn't require you to keep it protection free.


I would be very interested in seeing your sources on that. I am a software developer and pretty much every file I touch has a "Copyright <year> <my employer>" comment right at the top. Not to mention the numerous open source licenses - GPL may not have any associated DRM, but I assure you our legal team takes it very seriously.

----------


## pabelfly

> I would be very interested in seeing your sources on that. I am a software developer and pretty much every file I touch has a "Copyright <year> <my employer>" comment right at the top. Not to mention the numerous open source licenses - GPL may not have any associated DRM, but I assure you our legal team takes it very seriously.


Yeah the  OGL might be free access but the code to implement it on a computer certainly isn't.

----------


## bekeleven

> My guess is WotC will give developers the choice to either 
> - keep publishing under 1.0a exclusively
> - or switch to 1.1 material, also exclusively


"I didn't publish that. It says right on the copyright page that that book is distributed by 𝒪𝓃𝑒 𝒫𝒶𝒾𝓏𝑜 𝐼𝓃𝒸."

----------


## Saintheart

> "I didn't publish that. It says right on the copyright page that that book is distributed by 𝒪𝓃𝑒 𝒫𝒶𝒾𝓏𝑜 𝐼𝓃𝒸."


"Which has offices based right at number 3 Main Street in the Canadian province of Tohellwithyouandthehorseyourodeinan."


Surprised nobody's made this reference yet:

*Spoiler*
Show

"_Vegeta - what does the scanner say about OGL's word count?_"

----------


## Ramza00

> Actual outcome is that most get chilled out of the market and Hasbro backs down or settles out of court for the rest. They wouldn't be willing to get it all the way there when giving these leftovers basically the same contract, but with exclusivity, would fulfill the main agenda in the first place: retraction of the OGL on the broader market. If no one uses the OGL anymore, for practical purposes it no longer exists.


Yep one of the outcomes is Pathfinder and WOTC create a hidden two party private contract where they hash this stuff out and the 25% royalties are if you take the standardized OGL 1.1 contract.

----------


## redking

Only one thing is legally certain about this new OGL: If you agree to the terms of the new OGL, the old OGL is invalided for YOU.

To me, this seems like slight of hand by WotC. They know that they can't de-authorize, in the legal sense, the previous OGLs, therefore WotC is trying to get individuals and companies to sign away their rights.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> It's possible - but Paizo isn't the one continuing the most popular system this time around WotC is. If 1.0 is upheld they could certainly do that with 5e, but I expect most PF2 fans would rather play that than 5.1.


Popularity can change quickly. Going to look at PF2. Just bought a 5e handbook on sale two weeks ago, already regretting it. I won't be buying anything else with DnD on the label if OGL 1.0a is invalidated.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Popularity can change quickly. Going to look at PF2. Just bought a 5e handbook on sale two weeks ago, already regretting it. I won't be buying anything else with DnD on the label if OGL 1.0a is invalidated.


I have no real interest in PF (1 or 2) due to play style, but I concur about the last paragraph. In fact, if the OGL 1.0a is invalidated, I'm going to only _play_ D&D 5e until my current ongoing campaigns are over and then transition any new campaigns to some other system entirely. And 5e is, for me, pretty darn near my ideal system. I've got gripes, but they're mostly about content and that's fixable. But I can't condone the scum move that they're (allegedly) trying to pull.

Heck, I'm noodling through what a non-D&D custom system would look like as I write this. Already got the basic thoughts about the core mechanics.

----------


## AnonymousPepper

And what about the people still making 3PP for PF1? Like, good lord.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I have no real interest in PF (1 or 2) due to play style, but I concur about the last paragraph. In fact, if the OGL 1.0a is invalidated, I'm going to only _play_ D&D 5e until my current ongoing campaigns are over and then transition any new campaigns to some other system entirely. And 5e is, for me, pretty darn near my ideal system. I've got gripes, but they're mostly about content and that's fixable. But I can't condone the scum move that they're (allegedly) trying to pull.
> 
> Heck, I'm noodling through what a non-D&D custom system would look like as I write this. Already got the basic thoughts about the core mechanics.


D6 is my ideal system, but it needs a lot of TLC to make it work borrowing ideas from open systems may be a start.

Using stuff you already have in the meantime isn't an issue, it's buy and paying for DnD products. I can't say that for Hasbro, I have a young kid and family game night at this point makes it impractical, but DnD, yeah, something else while getting back into possibly doing some gaming.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> D6 is my ideal system, but it needs a lot of TLC to make it work borrowing ideas from open systems may be a start.
> 
> Using stuff you already have in the meantime isn't an issue, it's buy and paying for DnD products. I can't say that for Hasbro, I have a young kid and family game night at this point makes it impractical, but DnD, yeah, something else while getting back into possibly doing some gaming.


I'm running two ongoing games (one VTT and one in person) and playing in another, all in custom worlds (my own for the two I'm running, the other DM's for the one where I'm a player). All 5e. So I'm going to finish those games either way. After that? Dunno. Have yet to find a system that checks the necessary boxes. But in the interim, I'm going to buy exactly nothing and cancel my D&D Beyond subscription.

And I posted for the first time on Twitter _ever_, despite having the account since 2014. Basically saying as much directly to the official twitter handle of D&D and to Jeremy Crawford as well.

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> And what about the people still making 3PP for PF1? Like, good lord.


That is the key problem with revoking 1.0a, it undermines huge swathes of the ecosystem, because OGL 1.0a is a major keystone to a great deal of the industry. Ditto for 3PP for Troll Lord games, Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds, etc.  As I noted before, even systems like Savage Worlds, GURPS, Nocturnal/antipaladin games, etc. will likely need to consult with lawyers as they will face a lawsuit. Also some otherwise abandoned properties maybe in the crosshairs, (didn't someone print a faserip system update recently? While I know a website allege they have permission to distribute the original faserip stuff for free, I'm not sure it is officially abandoned).

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I have no real interest in PF (1 or 2) due to play style, but I concur about the last paragraph. In fact, if the OGL 1.0a is invalidated, I'm going to only _play_ D&D 5e until my current ongoing campaigns are over and then transition any new campaigns to some other system entirely. And 5e is, for me, pretty darn near my ideal system. I've got gripes, but they're mostly about content and that's fixable. But I can't condone the scum move that they're (allegedly) trying to pull.
> 
> Heck, I'm noodling through what a non-D&D custom system would look like as I write this. Already got the basic thoughts about the core mechanics.


Have you checked mini6, cinema6, or D6Fantasy? The latter needs some work to make the magic system a little less time consuming at the table (if someone wants to create spells on the fly) but you can make it as crunchy or as light as you want. Easy to modify. Want to do hitpoints that go up when CP is awarded, not to hard. Don't like health levels, already a way to do that. Want add gunpowder to the setting? Just add a few skills and you have it. Players go off the map and need a monster fast, come up with an appearance, give it a random attack number and you're good. Or create 10, put them on index cards and you are good to go. Want to play a game in space, D6 space means anything you learned in D6nfantasy transfers almost seamlessly.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Have you checked mini6, cinema6, or D6Fantasy? The latter needs some work to make the magic system a little less time consuming at the table (if someone wants to create spells on the fly) but you can make it as crunchy or as light as you want. Easy to modify. Want to do hitpoints that go up when CP is awarded, not to hard. Don't like health levels, already a way to do that. Want add gunpowder to the setting? Just add a few skills and you have it. Players go off the map and need a monster fast, come up with an appearance, give it a random attack number and you're good. Or create 10, put them on index cards and you are good to go. Want to play a game in space, D6 space means anything you learned in D6nfantasy transfers almost seamlessly.


I'll have to look into it.

Things I want out of a system (that I can't tell if the various d6 systems would give me):

* Classes and levels. Yes, I *like* strong class fantasies. Build-a-bear annoys me.
* Dead simple action resolution over bell curves. As a result, dice-pool mechanics are disfavored.
* Few, if any, meta-resources (ie fate points, etc).
* ... a bunch of other things I can't think of right now.

----------


## Ramza00

> And what about the people still making 3PP for PF1? Like, good lord.


Hey!  I like what I learned to love.  Also do not like change  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Rynjin

> I'll have to look into it.
> 
> Things I want out of a system (that I can't tell if the various d6 systems would give me):
> 
> * Classes and levels. Yes, I *like* strong class fantasies. Build-a-bear annoys me.
> * Dead simple action resolution over bell curves. As a result, dice-pool mechanics are disfavored.
> * Few, if any, meta-resources (ie fate points, etc).
> * ... a bunch of other things I can't think of right now.


Consider this my regular pushing of Final Fantasy d6 as a game that fits this bill. All resolution is 2d6 plus a bonus. You can Job change, but it's not necessary and there are incentives to stick with a class. There is only one meta resource (Destiny) which powers both certain game changer class features and some meta options (mainly getting a reroll).

Fun system.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Consider this my regular pushing of Final Fantasy d6 as a game that fits this bill. All resolution is 2d6 plus a bonus. You can Job change, but it's not necessary and there are incentives to stick with a class. There is only one meta resource (Destiny) which powers both certain game changer class features and some meta options (mainly getting a reroll).
> 
> Fun system.


That's something to consider, definitely. I've taken a lot of lore cues from FFXIV. How adaptable is it to other settings? What's the overall power level like (on a scale of nasty brutish (not British, stupid autocorrect) and short to high op 3e D&D)?

----------


## ToranIronfinder

> I'll have to look into it.
> 
> Things I want out of a system (that I can't tell if the various d6 systems would give me):
> 
> * Classes and levels. Yes, I *like* strong class fantasies. Build-a-bear annoys me.
> * Dead simple action resolution over bell curves. As a result, dice-pool mechanics are disfavored.
> * Few, if any, meta-resources (ie fate points, etc).
> * ... a bunch of other things I can't think of right now.


So D6 is skill based, medium crunch. Easily modified.  One of the things I've been playing with is a level mechanism. A class and level is simply a "bucket of skills" give it a number of XP multiplied by current level and all skills in the bucket go up by one. Want to multiclass, sure add a second bucket. Want to ve able to advance a skill not in your class, why not? Don't want players doing too many things, well that is ok too. It's a good, fairly blank canvas which is a strength and weakness (since you have to do some painting) Want to use DND abilities as new attributes, sure go ahead, I wouldn't publish it that way, but if it's familiar . . . 

It has fate points and character points, one is spent on adjusting roles and on advancing skills. That frankly is a problem in the system, as spending CP in play means you advance.more slowly, not spending it can be tough in clutch moments. Fate points exist under a lot of names, but both can be ignored without hampering of game play. 

That said, it isn't a single D20, it is a dice pool  system.

----------


## Rynjin

> That's something to consider, definitely. I've taken a lot of lore cues from FFXIV. How adaptable is it to other settings? What's the overall power level like (on a scale of nasty brutish (not British, stupid autocorrect) and short to high op 3e D&D)?


Easily adaptable. Power level is...best way I can describe it is the game aims to mimic the feel of Final Fantasy CUTSCENES more than gameplay. Ultima, as a high level spell, has the explicit ability to obliterate everything within 500 miles of the caster (...including the caster, it's one of the very few abilities in the game that allows friendly fire, and you have to spend a ton of Destiny to turn it off).

But that's basically at level cap. At low levels probably the most impressive-seeming ability is Black mage's Obliterate ability, which can utterly destroy an object up to a size based on your check; usually starting at about "disassemble a car" (or your opponent's weapon) and scaling up to "delete a skyscraper" at high levels (once per session either way).

...Also high level Ninjas can Throw the moon.

----------


## Psyren

> And what about the people still making 3PP for PF1? Like, good lord.


That will probably depend on a few things:

 - Whether existing content will be affected by the 1.0a becoming unauthorized, or only future content.
 - What _counts_ as "existing content" (e.g. PF1 is an existing game; will that mean Paizo and 3PP can keep making books for it specifically and only need to worry about this change if they try to move on to PF3, or will that mean they can continue to sell their existing PF1 books but never make any others, or will that mean that PF1 is a done deal whose material can never be made or sold again?)
 - Whether Paizo ultimately says screw it and negotiates a specific license with WotC with more favorable terms for both sides than OGL 1.1.

All of these are currently unknowns, and will likely remain such until tested in court (or settled outside it.)

----------


## Shinoskay

> I've been hearing reports that Wizards of the Coast is looking to revoke the Open Gaming Licence for d20 games (OGL 1.0) and update it with a new gaming licence, OGL 1.1
> 
> https://gamerant.com/dungeons-dragon...ckdown-one-dd/
> 
> This isn't yet official (currently we only have access to leaked drafts of the licence), but I thought this would be worth discussing here since many of us make use of OGL-related product, and a few people on here actually produce the content, including but not limited to Pathfinder, Spheres, and a bunch of other lesser-known d20-licenced games.
> 
> The tl;dr as I understand it:
> - Wizards wants to revoke the old licence and replace it in a very short time, the timeframe they originally gave was a week.
> - Wizards wants to reserve the right to revoke the licence from people using the licence if they don't approve of their content.
> ...


I think wizards of the coast is being a **** tard, people who make content about the game or who use the the open content are basically creating interest in the genre. Insterest in the genre brings people to the game en large which brings them to wizard. Capping earnings from said content lowers interest in making that content which in term lowers garnered interest from people who enjoyed that content. 

nevermind greedy companies need to go **** themselves. Wizard is getting too ****ing greedy and its seriously becoming a problem. finally, open licenses should not be able to be legally removed like that. It's out there, its done. accept it and move the **** on. People still play 5e, lots of people, despite how **** it is and people still play 5e based games.




> My expectation is that the 1.1 license will not be considered a new "version" of this license, but rather just one with a similar naming convention. Future works will be published strictly under the 1.1 license, which will likely not have that clause, but again, previous releases under the old license cannot be revoked.



While I am not a lawyer, I have gone to some administrative justice schooling. 
Two great things about the law are things such as common man interpretation and whether you are of criminal mind or not. Sure, civil law, which this falls under, will be a little different there is still common interpretation. A similar naming convention opens it up to be interpretated as a new version of the same thing. After all, it is clearly a new iteration, from the same source, as the the previous and clearly identifiable as older, iteration and there for it would be reasonable for someone to include it in the same realm of content.

----------


## Bohandas

> I think wizards of the coast is being a **** tard, people who make content about the game or who use the the open content are basically creating interest in the genre. Insterest in the genre brings people to the game en large which brings them to wizard. Capping earnings from said content lowers interest in making that content which in term lowers garnered interest from people who enjoyed that content. 
> 
> nevermind greedy companies need to go **** themselves. Wizard is getting too ****ing greedy and its seriously becoming a problem. finally, open licenses should not be able to be legally removed like that. It's out there, its done. accept it and move the **** on. People still play 5e, lots of people, despite how **** it is and people still play 5e based games.


Agreed 100%

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Agreed 100%


Having seen a more full draft version (still leaked, but...), yeah. This is WotC playing Darth Vader. If this is released as is, they should be made pariahs and no one with a shred of conscience or morals should have any further dealings with them.

----------


## Quertus

> Only one thing is legally certain about this new OGL: If you agree to the terms of the new OGL, the old OGL is invalided for YOU.
> 
> To me, this seems like slight of hand by WotC. They know that they can't de-authorize, in the legal sense, the previous OGLs, therefore WotC is trying to get individuals and companies to sign away their rights.


Ianal, but. What keeps a company from having its cake and eating it too by splitting into two legal entities, one under each license? Were I to be in such a situation, thats the first thing Id consider.




> Having seen a more full draft version (still leaked, but...), yeah. This is WotC playing Darth Vader. If this is released as is, they should be made pariahs and no one with a shred of conscience or morals should have any further dealings with them.


So its the moral equivalent of the Wall of the Faithless?  :Small Amused:

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> Having seen a more full draft version (still leaked, but...), yeah. This is WotC playing Darth Vader. If this is released as is, they should be made pariahs and no one with a shred of conscience or morals should have any further dealings with them.


how many FLGS would it take to cancel their orders with WotC, for them to backpaddel?

we would like to invite WotC to survive on direct marketing exclusively

----------


## AnimeTheCat

> how many FLGS would it take to cancel their orders with WotC, for them to backpaddel?
> 
> we would like to invite WotC to survive on direct marketing exclusively


Unfortunately, I think WotC would relish this. They acquired D&D Beyond and definitely appear to be moving in a subscription based direction as a business model if you ask me. If they could basically have local game shops nope out of physical sales, I bet they would figure out a way to capitalize on the open season of market share.

The better way would be to zealously market other systems, host more non d&d games, then attempt to negotiate lower prices since the D&D products just aren't moving and WotC's marketing decisions are negatively impacting THEIR bottom line.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Unfortunately, I think WotC would relish this. They acquired D&D Beyond and definitely appear to be moving in a subscription based direction as a business model if you ask me. If they could basically have local game shops nope out of physical sales, I bet they would figure out a way to capitalize on the open season of market share.
> 
> The better way would be to zealously market other systems, host more non d&d games, then attempt to negotiate lower prices since the D&D products just aren't moving and WotC's marketing decisions are negatively impacting THEIR bottom line.


Yeah. They're already aggressively cutting FLGS out of the M:tG market and likely figure that they can monopolize the (growing?) online/VTT market (by killing off the competition). I think they'll fail at this and this whole thing will crater (especially since OneD&D isn't actually anything most people care about or really want, it's small tweaks made mostly at random to appease the Twitterati who don't really even play).

----------


## AnimeTheCat

> Yeah. They're already aggressively cutting FLGS out of the M:tG market and likely figure that they can monopolize the (growing?) online/VTT market (by killing off the competition). I think they'll fail at this and this whole thing will crater (especially since OneD&D isn't actually anything most people care about or really want, it's small tweaks made mostly at random to appease the Twitterati who don't really even play).


Right... I'm trying to figure out what market hole they're filling with IneD&D, but my guess I'd that they see so much of the market based off of their product they want to either:
a) force the market to use their platform (i.e. register and conduct sales via D&D Beyond), or
b) capture the share of the market third party competitors have and increase their market share (by preventing the use of their framework and being the sole provider/proprietor of that framework)

The fact that I first saw an article stating that the CEO of WotC doesn't think D&D I'd as profitable as it should be, looked at the marketing moves D&D has been making, and only heard about the OGL 1.1 stuff over the past few days, I can't help but think this is WotC trying to consolidate their market share, push out competitors, and maximize their profits. I would not be surprised if there are layoffs at WotC in the next quarter, if there haven't already been.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Right... I'm trying to figure out what market hole they're filling with IneD&D, but my guess I'd that they see so much of the market based off of their product they want to either:
> a) force the market to use their platform (i.e. register and conduct sales via D&D Beyond), or
> b) capture the share of the market third party competitors have and increase their market share (by preventing the use of their framework and being the sole provider/proprietor of that framework)
> 
> The fact that I first saw an article stating that the CEO of WotC doesn't think D&D I'd as profitable as it should be, looked at the marketing moves D&D has been making, and only heard about the OGL 1.1 stuff over the past few days, I can't help but think this is WotC trying to consolidate their market share, push out competitors, and maximize their profits. I would not be surprised if there are layoffs at WotC in the next quarter, if there haven't already been.


The one complication here is that WotC (ok, mainly the M:tG arm) provides something like a majority of Hasbro's profits. Despite being one of the smaller divisions. I totally agree that this is a monopolistic attempt to cut off competitors at the knees and prevent new ones. I _also_ think that it's a totally scummy move that could very well backfire on them hard. And if they don't back off..._I hope it backfires hard_. Especially if that means WotC goes out of business or they have to sell off the D&D IP to someone else entirely. Because they've (recently) been horrible stewards of that IP.

----------


## pabelfly

Cutting out FLGS's is a huge mistake. The stores aren't just selling the books and minifigs but often hosting and games, offering table space, and recommending people to the games. If a casual person says, "I want to try DnD", one of their first points of call is going to be the FLGS, and good luck to getting the store to recommend that customer to the new, shiny version of DnD where they make no money.

Reminds me of when Sony wanted to try selling one of their portable consoles without the ability to use physical media. Retailers could either stock the console that they would never get any game sales from, or they could sell the one with the disc slot, where they would. Very few retailers chose the first option, and I can see the same happening with WOTC's new game.

----------


## AnimeTheCat

> Cutting out FLGS's is a huge mistake. The stores aren't just selling the books and minifigs but often hosting and games, offering table space, and recommending people to the games. If a casual person says, "I want to try DnD", one of their first points of call is going to be the FLGS, and good luck to getting the store to recommend that customer to the new, shiny version of DnD where they make no money.


This is what I think WotC is trying to upset. What if, instead of having to go to your local gaming store, you could have a 1 month free trial to OneD&D's subscription based online gaming platform with D&D Certified DMs ready to make your fantasy role playing dreams, a reality. After your 30 day trial, you can choose from the basic package, which grants you access to the OneD&D core material and the online marketplace to see where your adventures take you next!

Or something like that... people have already shown they're willing to pay money to play D&D in VTT setting, so if local gaming stores host it, that's money and market share WotC is potentially losing out on.




> Reminds me of when Sony wanted to try selling one of their portable consoles without the ability to use physical media. Retailers could either stock the console that they would never get any game sales from, or they could sell the one with the disc slot, where they would. Very few retailers chose the first option, and I can see the same happening with WOTC's new game.


Didn't they already say OneD&D wouldn't have physical books? They're definitely trying to force the market to themselves for everything. Rules, VTT, media, forums... all of it. 

That's just what I'm feeling at least. Microsoft, Adobe, etc have moved away from one-time licensing payments to subscription based, and moved their operations to online services. I think you can still buy subscriptions in-stores, but it's one year, three year, etc. It's no longer, "here's the program, it's yours now" with them. I feel strongly that WotC is moving that way with OneD&D.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Cutting out FLGS's is a huge mistake. The stores aren't just selling the books and minifigs but often hosting and games, offering table space, and recommending people to the games. If a casual person says, "I want to try DnD", one of their first points of call is going to be the FLGS, and good luck to getting the store to recommend that customer to the new, shiny version of DnD where they make no money.
> 
> Reminds me of when Sony wanted to try selling one of their portable consoles without the ability to use physical media. Retailers could either stock the console that they would never get any game sales from, or they could sell the one with the disc slot, where they would. Very few retailers chose the first option, and I can see the same happening with WOTC's new game.


Yeah. Probably they think that "everything's gone digital now" or "the pandemic killed the FLGS and we don't need it any more." Or maybe "we're so valuable they'll _have_ to play along and we can just put the screws to them as hard as we want and nothing will change." All of which are quite short-sighted, I believe.




> This is what I think WotC is trying to upset. What if, instead of having to go to your local gaming store, you could have a 1 month free trial to OneD&D's subscription based online gaming platform with D&D Certified DMs ready to make your fantasy role playing dreams, a reality. After your 30 day trial, you can choose from the basic package, which grants you access to the OneD&D core material and the online marketplace to see where your adventures take you next!
> 
> Or something like that... people have already shown they're willing to pay money to play D&D in VTT setting, so if local gaming stores host it, that's money and market share WotC is potentially losing out on.


Yeah. Something like that.




> Didn't they already say OneD&D wouldn't have physical books? They're definitely trying to force the market to themselves for everything. Rules, VTT, media, forums... all of it. 
> 
> That's just what I'm feeling at least. Microsoft, Adobe, etc have moved away from one-time licensing payments to subscription based, and moved their operations to online services. I think you can still buy subscriptions in-stores, but it's one year, three year, etc. It's no longer, "here's the program, it's yours now" with them. I feel strongly that WotC is moving that way with OneD&D.


I haven't heard anything to this effect, but wouldn't be surprised if they tried. Physical books have much lower margins and you have to deal with (gasp) distributors who want a cut. Oh, and you can't put a subscription on a physical book[1].

[1] Unless you're a textbook company including "homework codes" that you have to use for class...I could see WotC tying it fundamentally into the ruleset so you _had_ to have a subscription even to use a physical book. Somehow. Or at least trying. I wouldn't put textbook publisher-levels of scum and villainy past them. And that's sinking _super_ low--textbook companies and academic publishers make the NFT/Blockchain scammers look like paragons of virtue.

----------


## spectralphoenix

I think the MtG stuff is actually the most important part for FLGS. They probably aren't selling a lot of non-Pathfinder 3PP products out of brick and mortar stores anyway. But it's my understanding that Friday Night Magic keeps the lights on for a lot of those places.

----------


## Bohandas

> That's just what I'm feeling at least. Microsoft, Adobe, etc have moved away from one-time licensing payments to subscription based, and moved their operations to online services. I think you can still buy subscriptions in-stores, but it's one year, three year, etc. It's no longer, "here's the program, it's yours now" with them. I feel strongly that WotC is moving that way with OneD&D.


That kind of rent-seeking is why I don't use those companies' products anymore. I use stuff like Libre Office now

----------


## redking

Look at the criticism that WotC has sustained in the last few days. For WotC, it's water off a duck's back. This belies the long-standing claims that WotC is hypersensitive to criticism, and is this forced to cave in the tiny minority of people saying that "orcs are racist". That was so obviously an inside job.

Now WotC is effectively saying "well, we need to fight Nazis and transphobes, and do that you need to sign away the rights to all your IP and we also need 25% of your revenues". Nice cover story!

----------


## Bohandas

Well, "we need to fight [whatever people are currently panicking about]" has historically been a very effective way of getting people to accept outrageous things

----------


## Ashtagon

> That kind of rent-seeking is why I don't use those companies' products anymore. I use stuff like Libre Office now


Same. I stopped upgrading MS office about a decade ago. Once they make that old version of office incompatible with current windows, I'm switching either to libre office or all the way to linux, depending on what the payment model for windows is and how weirdly they've mangled the user interface.

(Seriously, the point of a good user interface is that it doesn't draw your attention to it; changing it every version is the opposite of that.)

----------


## Bohandas

I'm planning on Linux for my next computer too. Apparently the new Windows flat out won't run without a Microsoft account, and there's no way in hell that I'm giving them one bit of data or one red cent. I hope that they go out of business. and Apple too. (in fact, that's my sentiment towards most large corporations)




> (Seriously, the point of a good user interface is that it doesn't draw your attention to it; changing it every version is the opposite of that.)


They have to change _something_. If they didn't then people would realize that its a mature technology and that new editions are superfluous

----------


## ahyangyi

Slightly diverging from the topic, but I do thank Valve's effort to vastly improve the gaming experience under Linux in the past few years.

Being able to play about 90% of my Steam games under Linux is a good guarantee that I can say nope to Microsoft if they make a **** move some day.

----------


## Psyren

Official, er, "response" from the DDB account: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...71896759926784




> We know you have questions about the OGL and we will be sharing more soon. Thank you for your patience.


Translation: "Our lawyers are working overtime this week!"

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> Official, er, "response" from the DDB account: https://twitter.com/DnDBeyond/status...71896759926784
> 
> 
> 
> Translation: "Our lawyers are working overtime this week!"


are there even any real creators left at WotC?
or are they just a law firm with hobby D&D players  :Small Tongue:

----------


## Scots Dragon

> are there even any real creators left at WotC?
> or are they just a law firm with hobby D&D players


Most of the creators who do work for D&D are freelancers so... not many.

----------


## Saintheart

I see Kobold Press threw down the gauntlet.  They're producing their own open source gaming licence.  Broke the webpage when the announcement happened, apparently.

Wonder if the damage-control tweet from Hazmat/Lizards of the Coast came in response to that?

----------


## pabelfly

Link is here, for anyone interested in Kobold Press's announcement: https://koboldpress.com/raising-our-flag/

Not much detail at the moment, but probably what you want to know right now is that they want it to be open and subscription-free, and they're taking submissions to playtest the ruleset as they develop it.




> Wonder if the damage-control tweet from Hazmat/Lizards of the Coast came in response to that?


Well their previous Kickstarter raised $200K. They're not nobodies, but not quite in Wizard's target audience when they were talking about entities making $750K or more off Kickstarter.

----------


## Ashtagon

> Well their previous Kickstarter raised $200K. They're not nobodies, but not quite in Wizard's target audience when they were talking about entities making $750K or more off Kickstarter.


Oh, they totally are. WotC might not have been expecting to take them to the cleaners with a 25% pound of flesh, but never underestimate the business intelligence advantage from knowing the exact full turnover of every competitor in your business field.

(Also, is the 750k threshold per product or per year?)

----------


## Saintheart

> Oh, they totally are. WotC might not have been expecting to take them to the cleaners with a 25% pound of flesh, but never underestimate the business intelligence advantage from knowing the exact full turnover of every competitor in your business field.
> 
> (Also, is the 750k threshold per product or per year?)


750k revenue per year, not per product.

EDIT: Never mind.

----------


## pabelfly

> 750k revenue per year, not per product.
> 
> EDIT: Never mind.


I think they had in mind Critical Roll and Paizo in particular when drafting the OGL, and other, smaller companies were secondary thoughts.

Still looking forward to seeing what Kobold Press ends up making, and doubly so if other companies get on board with also making product for the new game system.

----------


## Agi Hammerthief

> never underestimate the business intelligence advantage from knowing the exact full turnover of every competitor in your business field.


There is also the pray I dont alter it any further with 30 days notice clause.

----------


## PhoenixPhyre

> Oh, they totally are. WotC might not have been expecting to take them to the cleaners with a 25% pound of flesh, but never underestimate the business intelligence advantage from knowing the exact full turnover of every competitor in your business field.
> 
> (Also, is the 750k threshold per product or per year?)


Not just turnover. They are requiring all the deets, including exactly what you're publishing, where you're selling it, and how much you're charging. Basically "give us your entire business model, and if we don't like it or don't want to compete, we'll just shut you down on an excuse."

----------


## truemane

*Metamagic Mod*: we acknowledge this is an important topic for the hobby, but the specific nexus of legal advice and politics inherent to it make it a difficult topic to discuss on this Forum. We're 'pausing' all instances of this conversation, forum-wide. We ask that no one start new threads about it, and no one participate in existing threads. Thank you.

----------

