# Gavin Norman on the future of OSE



## overgeeked

“As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is actually legal for them to do, under the terms of the license, is open to interpretation.

A huge number of games, including our own Old-School Essentials, are founded on the Open Game License. If that license were revoked, such games would be in jeopardy. The leaked version of the new OGL includes some extremely unappealing terms, most notably granting Wizards a "nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license" to use content released under the OGL "for any purpose".

Needless to say, we are making various contingency plans in anticipation of the official release of the new OGL. Once the official release happens and we've had time to fully digest its implications, we will announce any possible alterations to our publication schedule.”









						OGL v1.1
					

As you may have heard, Wizards of the Coast is poised to release a new version of the Open Game License (v1.1). Parts of the license have been leaked online and it appears that Wizards' intent is to revoke the current version of the OGL, forcing creators to adopt the new version. Whether this is...




					necroticgnome.com


----------



## kapars

I’ve gone into full on panic buying mode and ordered all the books on the OSE site that I don’t have already. I’m open to recommendations, especially for higher level dungeons.


----------



## doctorbadwolf

I’ve been curious about OSE. Generally I’m not into the Old School playstyle or design philosophy, but as a “side” game it can be fun.


----------



## Malmuria

kapars said:


> I’ve gone into full on panic buying mode and ordered all the books on the OSE site that I don’t have already. I’m open to recommendations, especially for higher level dungeons.



this is for levels 3-5, if that counts Halls of the Blood King


----------



## Malmuria

The Dolmenwood setting book was supposed to be kickstarted this year.  I was on the NG patreon and so I have bits and pieces of it, and was running a campaign in it.  It's really fantastically well done and it would be a shame if the rug was pulled out from under it, especially as it seems close to completion.  It's a worthwhile setting even if you don't particularly like "old school" style dungeon play.


----------



## Malmuria

My favorite OSR system is probably Whitehack.  And it looks like the author has paused sales to avoid any potential OGL issues.


----------



## Malchor Flubbit

This begs two questions:


Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?
Wizards of the Coast carefully attaches the OGL to an SDR and not the published books. In fact, WotC makes sure to note in 3.5 and 5e  books that those works contain no open game content. Have game designers and publishers opened more content than they may have intended by attaching the OGL in the back of their books?


----------



## schneeland

I read it earlier today, but it is indeed sad news. Of all things OGL, the damage done to the OSR is probably what will hurt me personally most. And many of the creators whose work I appreciate as well.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Malchor Flubbit said:


> Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?
> Wizards of the Coast carefully attaches the OGL to an SDR and not the published books. In fact, WotC makes sure to note in 3.5 and 5e books that those works contain no open game content. Have game designers and publishers opened more content than they may have intended by attaching the OGL in the back of their books?




Open Game Content only means something while the OGL exists. If WotC can revoke the OGL v1.0 (and if it's true that the OGL v1.1 only talks about "Licensed Content" but doesn't discuss "Open Game Content"), then it doesn't really matter what publishers have designated as OGC; WotC will have rendered the very concept moot.

But under the terms of the OGL v1.0? No, once something is open, it's open forever, available for anyone else to use in conjunction with the OGL v1.0.


----------



## MNblockhead

kapars said:


> I’ve gone into full on panic buying mode and ordered all the books on the OSE site that I don’t have already. I’m open to recommendations, especially for higher level dungeons.



Maybe all this open license drama is a conspiracy by TTPs to start 2023 in the black.~

;-)


----------



## kapars

Malmuria said:


> this is for levels 3-5, if that counts Halls of the Blood King



I got this one, I’m so excited for it.


----------



## Malchor Flubbit

Jack Daniel said:


> Open Game Content only means something while the OGL exists. If WotC can revoke the OGL v1.0 (and if it's true that the OGL v1.1 only talks about "Licensed Content" but doesn't discuss "Open Game Content"), then it doesn't really matter what publishers have designated as OGC; WotC will have rendered the very concept moot.
> 
> But under the terms of the OGL v1.0? No, once something is open, it's open forever, available for anyone else to use in conjunction with the OGL v1.0.



It sort of feels like people are jumping the gun, or trying to have it both ways.


----------



## Mannahnin

Malchor Flubbit said:


> Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?



This is a hotly-debated topic and will be central to any upcoming court cases.

To my understanding, at least these two facts are clear:

1. The original OGL contained the word "perpetual", but not the word "irrevocable".
2. Former VP Ryan Dancy, who was in charge of the OGL, and WotC's own OGL FAQ formerly hosted on their website for years, both made quite clear and explicit that the intent, and their understanding, of the effect and purpose of the OGL was indeed that it was irrevocable.  That neither WotC nor any hypothetical future owner could ever cancel it/take back what they had given.


----------



## Reynard

Malchor Flubbit said:


> Can a publisher even revoke the OGL for their own work?



It would seem weird, right? Because what if I built my OGL adventure on a couple cool monsters you made and released under the OGL. It seems counter intuitive that you could un-release those monsters and retroactively make my adventure infringe on your copyright.


----------



## overgeeked

Mannahnin said:


> This is a hotly-debated topic and will be central to any upcoming court cases.
> 
> To my understanding, at least these two facts are clear:
> 
> 1. The original OGL contained the word "perpetual", but not the word "irrevocable".
> 2. Former VP Ryan Dancy, who was in charge of the OGL, and WotC's own OGL FAQ formerly hosted on their website for years, both made quite clear and explicit that the intent, and their understanding, of the effect and purpose of the OGL was indeed that it was irrevocable.  That neither WotC nor any hypothetical future owner could ever cancel it/take back what they had given.



And all WotC has to do is show up with a copy of the book that had the OGL in and a copy without. Unless the rules are substantially different, then WotC will likely win by default.


----------



## Malmuria

overgeeked said:


> And all WotC has to do is show up with a copy of the book that had the OGL in and a copy without. Unless the rules are substantially different, then WotC will likely win by default.



Unless the basic mechanics are not actually protected IP.  Retroclones are seemingly in a more precarious position, however, since they do mimic many of the specific expressions of the original ("save vs spells" etc).


----------



## overgeeked

Malmuria said:


> Unless the basic mechanics are not actually protected IP.  Retroclones are seemingly in a more precarious position, however, since they do mimic many of the specific expressions of the original ("save vs spells" etc).



Individual mechanics can’t be copyrighted, but there’s some argument about all the mechanics together in aggregate being a unique and copyrightable thing.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Individual mechanics can’t be copyrighted, but there’s some argument about all the mechanics together in aggregate being a unique and copyrightable thing.



Right. You could probably get away with an adventure with minimal stats in it. "There are five goblins (hp 7,5,4, 4) in this room." You would have a harder time convincing a judge that a book of new monsters, all laid out in 5E style statblocks, isn't infringing.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Reynard said:


> Right. You could probably get away with an adventure with minimal stats in it. "There are five goblins (hp 7,5,4, 4) in this room." You would have a harder time convincing a judge that a book of new monsters, all laid out in 5E style statblocks, isn't infringing.



Books like The Monster Overhaul, which don't match any particular system, but are designed to be easy enough to convert to any of them, seem like a smart way to go at the moment, although not as good as systemless.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots

Also, I keep misreading the name in this thread as "Greg Norman" and thinking the PGA is now wading into all of this.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty!

schneeland said:


> I read it earlier today, but it is indeed sad news. Of all things OGL, the damage done to the OSR is probably what will hurt me personally most. And many of the creators whose work I appreciate as well.



Yeah as someone who isn't interested in 5e or 6e losing OSE, OSRIC, and all the support for those will not be good.


----------

