Last week, Gizmodo's Linda Codega caught a fantastic scoop - a leaked report of #Hasbro's plan to revoke the decades-old #OpenGamingLicense, which subsidiary #WizardsOfTheCoast promulgated as an allegedly #open sandbox for people seeking to extend, remix or improve #DungeonsAndDragons:
gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the…
1/
Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition
An exclusive look at Wizards of the Coast's new open gaming license shows efforts to curtail competitors and and tighten control on creators of all sizes.Linda Codega (Gizmodo)
Kushal Das 🇸🇪 reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The report set off a shitstorm among #DandD fans and the broader #TTRPG community - not just because it was evidence of yet more #enshittification of D&D by a faceless corporate monopolist, but because Hasbro was seemingly poised to take back the #commons that RPG players and designers had built over decades, having taken #WOTC and the #OGL at their word.
2/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •#Gamers were right to be worried. Giant companies love to #rugpull their fans, tempting them into a commons with lofty promises of a system that we will all have a stake in, using the fans for unpaid creative labor, then #enclosing the fans' work and selling it back to them. It's a tale as old as #CDDB and #Disgracenote:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CDDB#His…
3/
Compact disc database
Contributors to Wikimedia projects (Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.)Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •(Disclosure: I am a long-serving volunteer board-member for MetaBrainz, which maintains MusicBrainz, a free, open, community-managed and transparent alternative to Gracenote, explicitly designed to resist the kind of commons-stealing enclosure that led to the CDDB debacle.)
musicbrainz.org/
4/
MusicBrainz - The Open Music Encyclopedia
musicbrainz.orgCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Free/open licenses were invented specifically to prevent this kind of fuckery. First there was the #GPL and its successor software licenses, then Creative Commons and its own successors. One important factor in these licenses: they contain the word "irrevocable." That means that if you build on licensed content, you don't have to worry about having the license yanked out from under you later. It's #rugproof.
5/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Now, the OGL does *not* contain the word "irrevocable." Rather, the OGL is "perpetual." To a layperson, these two terms may seem interchangeable, but this is one of those fine lawerly distinctions that trip up normies all the time.
6/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •In lawyerspeak, a "perpetual" license is one whose revocation doesn't come automatically after a certain time (unlike, say, a one-year car-lease, which automatically terminates at the end of the year). Unless a license is "irrevocable," the licensor can terminate it whenever they want to.
This is exactly the kind of thing that trips up people who roll their own licenses, and people who trust those licenses.
7/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The OGL predates the #CreativeCommons licenses, but it neatly illustrates the problem with letting corporate lawyers - rather than public-interest nonprofits - unleash "open" licenses on an unsuspecting, legally unsophisticated audience.
8/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The perpetual/irrevocable switcheroo is the least of the problems with the OGL. As gsllc@chirp.enworld.org - an actual lawyer, as well as a #DiceLawyer - wrote back in 2019, the OGL is a grossly defective instrument that is significantly worse than useless.
gsllcblog.com/2019/08/26/part3…
The issue lies with what the OGL actually *licenses*.
9/
Part 3: The Damage Done by the Otherwise Ineffectual Open Gaming License #DnD #copyright #iplaw #ogl
Play What You WantCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Decades of #CopyrightMaximalism has convinced millions of people that anything you can imagine is #IntellectualProperty, and that this is indistinguishable from real property, which means that no one can use it without your permission.
10/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The #copyrightpilling of the world sets people up for all kinds of scams, because #copyright just doesn't work like that. This wholly erroneous view of copyright grooms normies to be suckers for every sharp grifter who comes along promising that everything imaginable is property-in-waiting (remember #SpiceDAO?):
onezero.medium.com/crypto-copy…
11/
Crypto + Copyright = 🤡💩 - OneZero
Cory Doctorow (OneZero)Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Copyright is a lot more complex than "anything you can imagine is your property and that means no one else can use it." For starters, copyright draws a fundamental distinction between *ideas* and *expression*. Copyright does *not* apply to ideas - the idea, say, of elves and dwarves and such running around a dungeon, killing monsters. That is emphatically *not* copyrightable.
12/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Copyright also doesn't cover abstract systems or methods - like, say, a game whose dice-tables follow well-established mathematical formulae to create a "balanced" system for combat and adventuring. Anyone can make one of these, including by copying, improving or modifying an existing one that someone else made. That's what "uncopyrightable" means.
13/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Finally, there are the #ExceptionsAndLimitations to copyright - things that you are allowed to do with copyrighted work, without first seeking permission from the creator or copyright's proprietor. The best-known exception is US law is #FairUse, a complex doctrine that is often incorrectly characterized as turning on "four factors" that determine whether a use is fair or not.
14/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •In reality, the four factors are a starting point that courts are allowed and encouraged to consider when determining the fairness of a use, but some of the most consequential fair use cases in Supreme Court history flunk one, several, or even *all* of the four factors (for example, the #Betamax decision that legalized VCRs in 1984, which fails all four).
15/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Beyond fair use, there are other exceptions and limitations, like the *di minimis* exemption that allows for incidental uses of tiny fragments of copyrighted work without permission, even if those uses are not fair use. Copyright, in other words, is #FactIntensive, and there are many ways you can legally use a copyrighted work without a license.
Which brings me back to the OGL, and what, specifically, it licenses.
16/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •The OGL is a license that only grants you permission to use the things that WOTC *can't* copyright - "the game mechanic [including] the methods, procedures, processes and routines." In other words, the OGL gives you permission to use things *you don't need permission to use*.
But maybe the OGL grants you permission to use *more* things, beyond those things you're allowed to use anyway? Nope. The OGL specifically exempts:
17/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •> Product and product line names, logos and identifying marks including trade dress; artifacts; creatures characters; stories, storylines, plots, thematic elements, dialogue, incidents, language, artwork, symbols, designs, depictions, likenesses, formats, poses, concepts, themes and graphic, photographic and other visual or audio representations...
18/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •> ...names and descriptions of characters, spells, enchantments, personalities, teams, personas, likenesses and special abilities; places, locations, environments, creatures, equipment, magical or supernatural abilities or effects, logos, symbols, or graphic designs; and any other trademark or registered trademark...
19/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Now, there are places where the uncopyrightable parts of D&D mingle with the copyrightable parts, and there's a legal term for this: #Merger. Merger came up for gamers in 2018, when the provocateur Robert Hovden got the US Copyright Office to certify copyright in a Magic: The Gathering deck:
pluralistic.net/2021/08/14/ang…
20/
Pluralistic: 14 Aug 2021 – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •If you want to learn more about merger, you need to study up on #Kregos and #Eckes, which are beautifully explained in the "Open Intellectual Property Casebook," a free resource created by Jennifer Jenkins and James Boyle:
web.law.duke.edu/cspd/openip/#…
21/
Open Intellectual Property Casebook | Duke University School of Law
web.law.duke.eduCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Jenkins and Boyle explicitly created their open casebook as an answer to another act of enclosure: a greedy textbook publisher cornered the market on IP textbook and charged every law student - and everyone curious about the law - $200 to learn about merger and other doctrines.
22/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •As EFF Senior Staff Attorney Kit Walsh writes in her must-read analysis of the OGL, this means "the only benefit that OGL offers, legally, is that you can copy verbatim some descriptions of some elements that otherwise might arguably rise to the level of copyrightability."
eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/bewa…
23/
Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D’s Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators
Electronic Frontier FoundationCory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •But like I said, it's not just that the OGL fails to give you rights - *it actually takes away rights you already have to D&D.* That's because - as Walsh points out - fair use and the other copyright limitations and exceptions give you rights to use D&D content, but the OGL is a contract whereby you surrender those rights, promising only to use D&D stuff according to WOTC's explicit wishes.
24/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •"For example, absent this agreement, you have a legal right to create a work using noncopyrightable elements of D&D or making fair use of copyrightable elements and to say that that work is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons. In many contexts you also have the right to use the logo to name the game (something called “nominative fair use” in trademark law).
25/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •"You can certainly use some of the language, concepts, themes, descriptions, and so forth. Accepting this license almost certainly means signing away rights to use these elements. Like Sauron’s rings of power, the gift of the OGL came with strings attached."
And here's where it starts to get interesting.
26/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Since the OGL launched in 2000, a huge proportion of game designers have agreed to its terms, tricked into signing away their rights. If Hasbro *does* go through with canceling the OGL, it will *release those game designers* from the shitty, deceptive OGL.
27/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •According to the leaks, the new OGL is even worse than the original versions - but you don't have to take those terms! Notwithstanding the fact that the OGL says that "using...Open Game Content" means that you accede to the license terms, that is just not how contracts work.
28/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Walsh: "Contracts require an offer, acceptance, and some kind of value in exchange, called 'consideration.' If you sell a game, you're inviting the reader to play it, full stop. Any additional obligations require more than a rote assertion."
"For someone who wants to make a game that's similar mechanically to Dungeons and Dragons, and even announce that it is compatible with Dungeons and Dragons, it has always been more advantageous as a matter of law to ignore the OGL."
29/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Walsh finishes her analysis by pointing to some *good* licenses, like the GPL and Creative Commons, "written to serve the interests of creative communities, rather than a corporation." Many open communities - like the programmers who created GNU/Linux, or the music fans who created Musicbrainz, were formed after outrageous acts of enclosure by greedy corporations.
30/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •If you're a game designer who was pissed off because the OGL was getting ganked - and if you're even more pissed off now that you've discovered that the OGL was a piece of shit all along - there's a lesson there. The OGL tricked a generation of designers into thinking they were building on a commons. They weren't - but they *could*.
31/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •This is a great moment to start - or contribute to - *real* open gaming content, licensed under standard, universal licenses like Creative Commons. Rolling your own license has always been a bad idea, comparable to rolling your own encryption in the annals of ways-to-fuck-up-your-own-life-and-the-lives-of-many-others. There is an opportunity here - Hasbro unintentionally proved that gamers *want* to collaborate on shared gaming systems.
32/
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •That's the true lesson here: if you want a commons, you're not alone. You've got company, like Kit Walsh herself, who happens to be a brilliant game-designer who won a #NebulaAward for her game "Thirsty Sword Lesbians":
evilhat.com/product/thirsty-sw…
eof/
Thirsty Sword Lesbians - Evil Hat Productions
Evil Hat ProductionsIan Boyte
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Ian Boyte • • •Kostchei
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Hey Cory, great stuff, thanks for describing that.. for someone who is always writing little bits of stuff but never really publishes.. what licence would you advise for free-to-use rules, lore? I'd like to be acknowledged if folks copy, but I'm happy for them to copy.
On the gaming side, I haven't considered my security /forensic work
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Kostchei • • •@kostchei The license you're looking for is either CC BY
creativecommons.org/licenses/b…
or CC BY-SA:
creativecommons.org/licenses/b…
Creative Commons — Attribution 4.0 International — CC BY 4.0
creativecommons.orgKostchei
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •ETA - If you'd like an essay-formatted version of this thread to read or share, here's a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
pluralistic.net/2023/01/12/beg…
Pluralistic: John Deere’s repair fake-out; Good riddance to the Open Gaming License (12 Jan 2023) – Pluralistic: Daily links from Cory Doctorow
pluralistic.netDavide "MaDdi3" Milano
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Class?
Wizard?
Arcane recovery?
Fireball?
Fireball deailng 8d6 fire damage, half with a dex save?
Count_ZeroOr
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Except people literally tried that: Mayfair Games with Role Aids for D&D, and WotC themselves with The Primal Order for Palladium Fantasy. The former was sued into oblivion, and the latter nearly was but for the grace of GAMA and Mike Pondsmith.
John Nephew, head of Atlas Games has a very good thread on this topic.
dice.camp/@Johnnephew/10967125…
Grumbling Game Master
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Programmer 832-529 🍅
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •When #Debian was working out what #FreeSoftware was and the definition of DFSG there was the "tentacles of evil" test.
This was partly to address the concern of #Rugpull from someone taking over a piece of software.
One of the questions for new Debian developers used to be why "at your option" (to go to a newer version) words in GPL are important.
Ravindra Kanodia
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Ravindra Kanodia • • •Ravindra Kanodia
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Dima Pasechnik 🇺🇦 🇳🇱
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Randomatic
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow reshared this.
mannaz / मनीषा
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •maxolasersquad
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Nathanael Nerode
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Good scoop. The way copyright works, however, they cannot revoke the OGL. The stuff already released under the OGL is released under the OGL, period, and there's not a damn thing they can do to change it.
All WoTC can do is not release stuff in the future themselves, and not work with companies which do OGL releases -- which will hurt THEM, not the other companies
Cory Doctorow
in reply to Nathanael Nerode • • •Nathanael Nerode
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •John Nephew
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •@neroden The contract doesn't say "irrevocable," but it does include specific conditions for termination. In that respect it is very similar to v.1 of the CC-A license put out years later, which also does not use the term "irrevocable" in its first iteration.
I am dubious of the idea that any copyright-related contract that does not say it is "irrevocable" can be rewritten at will by one party.
Shachihoko
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •I was a little hesiitant about diving into this thread, since Codega's report is based on a purported copy of the "OGL" 1.1 that nobody else has been able to read yet. However, you've done an excellent job of diving into the legalese and highlighting the sleight-of-hand that WotC is engaging in with the OGL in general.
I do wish Mastodon had a quote function, but I'm boosting the start and end of the thread - and I encourage other people to read through it. Long, but very good.
Tod Robbins
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Smári McCarthy
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Cory Doctorow reshared this.
Rob Hirschfeld
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Pepijn Schmitz
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •LegalEagle — Dungeons & Dragons Rolls a 1 on New License (OGL 1.1)
NebulaPepijn Schmitz
in reply to Cory Doctorow • • •Dungeons & Dragons Rolls a 1 on New License (OGL 1.1) ft. Matt Colville
YouTube