Here’s my OGL 1.2 survey submission
- Now that you’ve read the proposed OGL 1.2, what concerns or questions come to mind for you?
It is not the OGL 1.0a, which provided a much better degree of freedom for creators of all types. OGL 1.0a has been promised to us as never being retractable for 23 years, and as such many have built small livelihoods from it. Those people have been forgotten, stabbed in the back, and now cannot trust the word of Wizards of the Coast/Hasbro. The revisions to the OGL unacceptable. It must remain authorised AND be clearly irrevocable going forward. - After reading the proposed OGL 1.2, how has your perception of the future of Dungeons & Dragons changed compared to before reading OGL 1.2?
[x] Much worse - What would be needed to improve your perception of Dungeons & Dragons’ future?
Retain OGL 1.0a and make it legally irrevocable. We want it legally bulletproof going forward.
We accept that you want to make new editions of the game and protect them and the IP going forward, but this has been handled so badly that the trust has gone and there is no way forward that is going to be acceptable unless the OGL 1.0a remains.
I have bought products from every edition of the game since 1985. D&D has been a huge part of my life and I LOVE creating for it. I feel like a faifthul friend has betrayed me. I can never consider supporting Hasbro/WotC/D&D brand products again. - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the content found in the SRD that will be released under Creative Commons?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - Do you have any other comments about the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International and/or the content that will be released under Creative Commons?
For the most part, the proposed content released under CC is stuff that cannot be legally copyrighted under US copyright law. It seems like this is a giveaway, but we don’t access to get common races, classes, spells, creatures, items, etc, like under the OGL1.0a and asscociated SRDs (3 and 5).
Given the handling of the approach so far, this isn’t really going far enough given the retraction of the OGL 1.0a. It’s seems to be a smoke and mirrors tactic. - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the Notice of Deauthorization?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - Comments: It should be removed. This is the single most problematic issue in this whole situation.
Despite the dubious nature of whether this is possible legally, it’s the effect on the amazing creators that have helped support the D&D brand by keeping its name at the forefront of the industry for years. As a creator of products that have supported 5E and associated systems, I have always bought WotC D&D brand products from all editions. Once OGL 1.0a is deauthorised, there are two options;
1) Sign OGL 1.2 or 1.x. This will never happen because of the handling of the situation and the fact it is removing rights I already had.
2) Move all my creative focus away from the D&D brand. - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the types of content covered by the proposed OGL 1.2?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the content ownership rights outlined in the proposed OGL 1.2?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - Do you have any other comments about the types of content covered and/or the content ownership rights outlined by the proposed OGL 1.2?
If you have the ability to change/amend/restict the license and/or the associated SRDs then nothing is really protected, and as we have seen with OGL 1.0a, you can change things in ways we really do not like. - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the “You Control Your Content” section?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the “Warranties And Disclaimers” section?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the “Modification Or Termination” section?
Understanding [4]
Satisfaction [1] - Do you have any other comments about the “You Control Your Content”, “Warranties And Disclaimers”, or “Modification Or Termination” sections?
If you have the ability to change/amend/restict the license and/or the associated SRDs then nothing is really protected, and as we have seen with OGL 1.0a, you can change things in ways we really do not like. - How would you rate your level of understanding and your level of satisfaction with the Virtual Tabletop Policy?
Understanding [3]
Satisfaction [1] - Do you have any other comments about the Virtual Tabletop Policy?
I’m not best placed to have much comment on this, but any OGL 1.0a restrictions would be a non-starter for me. It seems like you are allowing OGL 1.0a content to be on VTTs, but only things already published. We want to see new (post OGL 1.2 release) OGL 1.0a content on VTTs. - Have you used the OGL 1.0a or previous versions of the OGL to create third party content?
Yes - Do you want to create third party content for Dungeons & Dragons in the future?
Maybe
(Glynn Note:) No comment field on why it’s a maybe. To clarify, Yes if OGL 1.0a remains authorised and is made legally irrevocable. No otherwise. - Would you be comfortable releasing TTRPG content under the proposed OGL 1.2 as written?
No - Why do you say that?
I will have no trust in Hasbro/WotC unless OGL 1.0a remains authorised and is made legally irrevocable. The new OGL1.2 is much more restrictive. Clause 6f is colossal overreach. - Compared to the OGL 1.0a, do you feel that you would be able to continue developing content the same way under the proposed OGL 1.2?
No - Why do you say that?
Not at all. It’s not the same agreement. OGL 1.0a was ‘open’ and encouraging to creators. OGL 1.2 is restrictive and not something I would consider to be ‘open’. I’m heartbroken about the thoughts of losing access to OGL 1.0a and asscoiated SRDs in a way that feels like a friend was giving me access and is taking it away. OGL 1.2 feels like someone I dont trust is allowing me access. That’s not the way an ‘open’ licensing agreement should feel. - How would you rate your interest in using the Content Creator Badge as part of your third party works?
[3] - Do you have any other comments about Content Creator Badges?
No
What other feedback do you have for us (related to the Open Games License or otherwise)?
I’ve purchased D&D brand products from all editions of D&D since 1985. D&D has been a reliable best friend.
After working outside of the TTRPG industry for 30 years, anxiety forced me to leave. Creating content for D&D and freelancing for other creators became my way of paying the bills and enjoying my life again. It has been a huge part of my wellbeing.
OGL 1.0a has been the thing that has made that a viable prospect. I make enough to live and really enjoy what I do, and for that I am grateful.
Whilst there are pathways out of this situation that do not involve the OGL 1.0a, it seems like a best friend is leaving me in the lurch. I feel betrayed. I feel like the cold hard corporate world doesn’t really care about the people that have supported the brand (directly and indirectly) for YEARS!
The OGL 1.0a must remain authorised and legally irrevocable, and existing SRDs remain usable to have any attempt to salvage the trust broken by this attempt to remove it.
I hope that this is read, and that someone near the top gets to read this, because we are people with feelings, livelihoods, fears and anxieties. We aren’t just a statistic, however we are presented to you. We are D&D.
Thank you for taking this survey. Your feedback is crucial to our stewardship of the D&D game.
The results of this survey will be made available by February 17, 2023.
