Comic for Wednesday, January 11th, 2023
Look at that, I even got the year right this time.
Sorry this comes a little late – lot of stuff came up this week, and on top of that lost power Monday night when I was trying to get it finished; plus this is one of those pages I was going to skip and then ended up unskipping. I do have the next page at least sketched already due to that.
Really though, the main reason is the elephant of the room, which I will now spend a little time below complaining about; nothing further useful about the comic will be said, and the below will just be “PastUtopia complains about his job like he used to in the olden days when he had a corporate job” segment. How nostalgic.
…
Anyway; as many of you know, my “day job” these last little over 2 years has been making D&D content as a “3rd Party Publisher”. This was under something called the “Open Game License”, a 20+ year old open license that was perpetual and, according to its creator and the lawyer that wrote it 20 years ago, irrevocable. Unfortunately in the those 20 years, D&D has gone from a brand that was worth a little bit of money, to a brand is worth probably more than a billion dollars, pulling in hundreds of million each year.
Unfortunately, money numbers that start with a “b” attracts corporate greed like shit attracts flies, and so the company that makes Dungeons and Dragons decided that it was time to build their own Walled Garden with all the fun stuff like subscriptions, digital content, all that good shit video games have done to turn them from games into more efficient money printers, but they had a problem: blokes out there were still selling books and making their own non-terrible money squeezing machines, and they thought maybe those would get in the way of their dreams of getting it to a billion dollar a year brand.
So, they decided to kill the OGL 1.0a. This is something I’ve known to some extent was coming for awhile, but until recently, I thought this was going to be for the next edition of the game coming out next year, rather than for current edition of the game: after all, it was already released as open content under a perpetual license that had existed for 20 years, and half a dozen large 3rd party companies exist in the space that creates… it seemed like a pretty safe bet.
Now there’s a question: can the legally do this? The answer is probably not. And that comes from lawyers (including the one I paid). But until that fight happens, anyone not willing to foot the legal fees probably has to back off the industry, and that probably includes me. In more pugnacious hours, I consider taking that fight, but it’s frankly irresponsible, since even the low end estimates put the cost at 10-50k (and the high end estimates are literally 10x that). I’d be better for me to just pony up some money for legal fees to fund whatever bigger fish wants to take that fight until it’s resolved – not only can they better afford, I’m not a great person to get sued; I’m generally not fastidious enough to be absolutely sure I wouldn’t make a mistake their lawyers could nail me for.
The other half of this is immense pushback. While the open letter me and a bunch of other creators endorsed has gotten 54,710 signatures (so far), it’s even beyond that. It’s being covered in most major news outlets, and increasingly large YouTube Channels (with sub counts climbing into the millions), almost universally extremely unfavorable to Wizards of the Coast. Honestly it’s not clear to me that pushing this through will be worth it for them, as they will probably irrevocable damage the next edition of the game, provisions of the OGL 1.1 aside.
So what’s actually wrong with the OGL 1.1? Well, you can read it in all it’s glory here; but the short answer is a lot. The open letter above is a good summary, but basically it’s not really an open license: WotC would not only own everything you publish under it, they’d be able to resell it without credit or payment, ban you at any time from using it, change the royalties at any time, you would have to submit all works to them for approval, you’d have to report all earnings to them, and, oh yeah, they’d charge royalties of 25% on anyone they want (currently large publishers, but again, they can change that at any time under the rules). Ultimately, it reads more to me like “please go out of business” than a serious attempt at a useable license.
But at the end of the day, they can write whatever they want into the new license. The absurdity is their attempt de-authorize the old perpetual license. While some argue it doesn’t say “irrevocable” that’s because that wasn’t commonly used at the time (according the person that wrote it and the lawyer that wrote it – fortunately their both still around), and it was intended to be irrevocable (and in their view, is); but WotC is not strictly speaking trying to “revoke” it. They are trying to make “no longer authorized” and therefor invalid under the provision of OGL 1.0a that people can use “any authorized version” (making something restrictive that is supposed to be permissive – a legal loophole)… but this is also no dice as there’s no provision in the license for making it no longer authorized. Further-… well, obviously I could go on, but I think at this point I’m just ranting.
Anyway… the TL;DR is that legally they probably cannot win, but 95% of 3rd parties (me included) are going to have to back off if they try for at least awhile, as being bankrupted by a lawsuit would be no real different than losing it (and most lawyers I speak to are confident WotC could at least do that without much hope of us recovering legal fees).
They may still change course, or delay, or whatever, but at the end of the day, they’ve probably destroyed the edition anyway, so even if they don’t kill folks off directly, they may have done it indirectly.
No idea what the future holds. I’ll figure something out. In the short term, I’ll see if things work out (and as annoying as things are the moment, they might be fine in the long run)… if they don’t, I’ll figure something else. I never planned to do this for a living, I just sort of fell into it, so if I fall out of it won’t be the end of the world. Unfortunately I’m fairly invested (monetarily speaking) into the next Kickstarter I haven’t run yet, so if I cannot run that it’ll be a bit of a downer, but not a crisis.
I’m halfway just salty about this shit is this is part of what made me leave the video game industry, so having it follow me to this new industry just because this industry became to profitable and shitty corporate executives in suits literally cannot help themselves pisses me off. This was a pretty fun job I largely enjoyed and seemed to be going well, so to have to ruined by a bunch of donkey fuckers wearing suits for no real reason (it probably won’t even get them what they want in the long run, and they’ll just bounce to another corporation as they sink their last one as always), is annoying.
…
….Anyway, that’s a good old fashion “I’m going to use this box as my #life-blog #complaint-box”. I try to avoid doing that, but I felt that (a) a lot of you folks that have been around forever would want more details than my vague complaints, and (b) I have poor restraint after dealing with this shit for a month when it comes to not ranting about it.
Have a good one and see ya’ll in slightly less than two weeks.
Last panel: And second thought -> On second thought
Whew! Got worried for a bit as the Utopia website wouldn’t load. The website is back now so I can enjoy the weekend anticipating the next comic.
Thanks for your hard work, Past.
You have a mistake in this comic. The first panel, where Ila is holding a spoon and saying, “Nope, all bad guys.” It’s not on a t-shirt. It should be on a t-shirt.
Or a hat or coffee mug. I prefer the coffee mug.
Heh Past! How about t-shirts or mugs with comic characters and quotes? Here’s some suggestions…
Ila holding a sniper rifle – “I don’t have that defect”
Naomi smiling – “When Naomi smiles”
Thank you for the page and thank you for unskipping! I really like this page: Artem duly taking note whom he owes a favour; Ila chatting allong and socialising with (more or less) “normal” humans; Avi showing an enthusiasm similar to her sister’s; also the contrast to the conversation style at the other table.
Does Mium ever lie? Ila mentioned a magic rocket launcher and I suppose you could describe her bank shot that way … in a manner of speaking. However, it seems that Ila does not have Mium’s defect of having to tell the truth.
I don’t remember the rocket launcher either. But then, I’m not sure which situation Ila is recounting.
Ila is talking about the bad guys with guns that she literally “dis-armed” at the mall attack. Mium provided the targeting info for Ila’s “bank shot” that hit several bad guys with a high velocity shot. Ila is telling the truth in a manner of speaking since she was the “rocket launcher” using Eidos and her link with Mium to launch/guide the projectile.
That OGL thing really blew up in YouTube. Maybe it doesn’t affect me directly since I’m not really into table top gaming, but I have been starting to wonder (and worry) that something similar could spill into the open source software scene, since neither the BSD nor the MIT licenses have the word “irrevocable” in them. . . .
It is getting worse for Hasbro/Wizards of the Coast. Talk is starting about boycotting other Hasbro products.
Look to be completely fair to Hasbro, a lot of their other lines have been losing customers due to quality decline. Most of them still maintaining sales because of brand and IP and nothing else.
I suspect thr BSD and MIT licenses will be fine. Primarily because Oracle, of trying to copyright APIs fame, isn’t attempting this tactic.
When a company tries to pull a licensing change that Oracle refuses to do, you know the legal foundation is nonexistent.
Well that and anyone trying that with MIT/BSD licenses would rapidly see the EFF, the Linux Foundation, Microsoft, Google, and maybe even Oracle suing them.
I’m not sure what standing any of those giants would have to sue; I’m not aware of any of them using either the MIT nor the BSD license.
I, on the other hand, do use the MIT license. Maybe I’ll add an addendum making it explicitly perpetual and irrevocable
As I have heard, you find BSD- and MIT-licensed code just about everywhere.
The Linux Information Project – at linfo.org/bsdlicense.html – tells us “BSD-licensed software is also commonly included in Linux distributions (i.e., versions) and has even been incorporated into some of the Microsoft Windows operating systems.” Which agrees with my experience.
For the MIT license, it would appear to be not just about using code others released under it, but also releasing its own. Says Wikipedia: “Notable companies using the MIT License include Microsoft (.NET), Google (Angular), and Meta (React).”
So, yeah, giants rely on these licenses, and anyone trying anything funny with them can expect to find powerful opposition to the idea.
If you want a permissive license that specifically says “perpetual” and “irrevocable”, then you might want to look into the Apache License 2.0 as it is a well known license that contains those words. Where you’ve already released software under the MIT License, it’s probably better to keep using that license as is, however, to avoid confusion. You could issue a separate statement saying that you consider it to be perpetual and irrevocable, I guess, but I don’t think that’s actually necessary. Like other people here, I’m not actually too worried about someone trying to misuse those licenses. . . .
The Apache 2.0 license imposes a number of things I don’t want to impose. An addendum is the way to go, rather than a wholesale change of license. (It can be separate).
But I do agree that it’s not necessary. It’s just for reassurance of the licensees.
Ah, yes, the Apache license is kind of, how shall I say it, confining, and also more complex and difficult to understand. Personally, I like the 2 clause BSD license for its simplicity, but I have concerns that it might not give enough protection to people using software licensed under it. The MIT license seems like a good compromise in that regard. . . .
Saying that you don’t know of tech giants using stuff licensed under the MIT license indicates you’re one of the many people who don’t read your software licenses.
You seen, the MIT license basically allows people to copy the compiled output from their code and use it so long as they include the copyright notice which contains the MIT license bundled with any other software licenses that are packaged with the code (or, if there somehow aren’t other software licenses packaged with it, it needs to be put in an appropriate location in the package, because it must be distributed with the compiled output.)
Microsoft, Google, and so forth don’t write code using the MIT license, but they certainly rely on code that was, so the MIT license is included towards the bottom of any Microsoft license document. If my memory serves me correctly, it’s usually something like the penultimate license in the list.
You are confusing use of a license vs using software that is licensed.
There’s a lot of confusion here, and I’ve made it worse. Let me try to clarify things.
If company BadCo tries to alter the interpretation of the MIT license (or revoke), it only directly affects GiantCorp if GiantCorp uses that specific software.
And in that case, it is GiantCorp that gets sued, not BadCo.
Now, GiantCorp could try to head off the problem by seeking a declatory judgement, but that’s not a suit for damages. All BadCo would have to fear would be spending money on lawyers w/o accomplishing their goal.
There are indirect effects—the business costs of the uncertainty that results. I think you’d have a hard time establishing monetary damages, much less a valid cause of action. BadCo didn’t create the license; they merely stated their interpretation, or at most exercised their rights to seek redress through the courts.
And all we little guys using that license, as well as GiantCo if they use it, have a simple recourse that doesn’t involve the courts.
We can add a clarifying addendum (it needn’t be in the same file, it just has to explicitly grant the right in question).
We can dual-license it. It was licensed under the MIT license; now it is also under the Bob license. If the Bob license grants a superset of rights, nobody even needs to think about which license. You won’t be able to pick and choose rights between the two.
I absolutely DO read licenses if I am going to distribute software that uses components that are licensed under those license. I have often been the person in charge of ensuring we comply, and I’ve written tools to facilitate this by searching for licensed libraries in large code bases, constructing that list of licenses you spoke of, and ensuring compliance with various other terms.
The gnu family of licenses are particularly problematic (as RMS intended). A change in interpretation of those could have far-reaching effects. But it would still play out the same. Users of the license would not be affected. Users of licensed software would be the defendants.
Companies that keep doing stupid stuff and hoping their customers will still support them will burn in the fires of social media.
Thanks for getting the comic published while dealing with real life problems. One minor oops… You didn’t include names of characters this time. Now I will need to look up Naomi’s little sister’s name. That will probably result in reading a few hours when I get distracted reading an old comic thread. Ah well, I can’t think of a better way of spending the weekend. Thanks again for the comic.
Wizards of the Coast is not the only game in town. The outrage being expressed in YiouTube could be the beginning of a revolution. People could just walk away. In the video editing field, public outrage recently forced a company to alter their demands and attempts to screw people who bought a lifetime license.
How about a GoFundMe for legal expenses?
Unfortunately as people walk away from the system, the ecosystem will become too fractured to support most of the creators it currently supports (since people making 3rd party content will always only get a % cut of the audience for that game, it’s much harder to make content for a system with 100k users than one with 10 million users).
It’s definitely going to be a turbulent time. There’s talks of a legal fund to help defend creators coming along, but nothing definite. Personally I will probably get out of the way of a lawsuit – it costs too much and I feel like I’d be a bad target for it – it’d really be better for it be a company with internal lawyers going over everything they do.
Time will tell though.
You might try contacting Wizards of the Coast to get clearance to publish your stuff without any restrictions, royalties, etc from their “new” OGL. They have issued a retraction due to the overwhelming YouTube negative reaction in the gaming culture. Most YouTube posts a day old have over 100,000 reads. A 19 hour old post has 322,000 reads! Wizards of the Coast caved and the “NEW” OGL is no more.
Anyone want to view the virtual shitstorm Wizards of the Coast is experiencing can look for “Wizards of the Coast OGL” on Youtube. Simply amazing!!!
Followup- People are walking away. The Beyond servers are crashing due to number of people cancelling their subscriptions. They had about 10 million subscribers at $5.99 per month. Only time will tell how much of the 3/4 Billion $$$ yearly income that Hasbro/Wizards has pissed away with their new greedy non-Open license proposal.
Hopefully Hasbro can apologize and do enough to save all the third party folks a sizeable chunk of income. OTOH, this could bite Hasbro in the ass big time if a boycott were to spread to their other product lines such as Power Rangers, Playskool, Potato Head, GI Joe, Nerf, etc. Also, companies licensing products such as Star Wars and Marvel to Hasbro could react negatively. A lot of decision makers at Hasbro are probably going to be fired over this fiasco.
If the agreements are like those that I’ve seen in other areas, they usually contain a clause that they can make changes in any manner they like, that any disagreements have to be handled by arbitration, and that class actions are forbidden. Remedies will probably require legislation regarding restrictions on terms of usage, trademarks, and copyrights. Probably also some changes regarding antitrust legislation as well.
I remember reading that it takes at least one hundred years for the law to develop means of handling new technologies. That means that handling the transmission of music over the radio still has a while to go.
Amazingly, the original OGL didn’t include those kinds of terms. The people behind it (who are now gone) wanted it to be permanent permanent. That kind of foresight is a bitch for companies, which is why they are attempting to make a new OGL as opposed to revising the prior one.
It’s worth noting that while they are gone from the companies involved, they are still alive and active online. Both the original creator and the lawyer that wrote it have gone on records in interviews that they don’t think it can or should be revoked or edited, and why they wrote that way.
It should be pretty ironclad, but it’s a 20+ year old contract with vs. a billion dollar companies team of lawyers trying to break it at seemingly any absurd cost to the public relations.
The whole thing is pretty crazy.
If they did not have those terms protecting themselves in the original license agreement, WotC may in for some pain, especially if they deal with EU courts. You might want to take a look at those who have tried to turn Linux and GNU licensed products into proprietary products. EU courts take these types of agreements much more seriously than American courts. When you mentioned YouTube, I found https://youtu.be/eZGw04cKAD4 . When you say that WotC is a billion dollar company, some of the precedents that would result from that change would impact a number of other billion dollar companies. See https://www.quora.com/Is-it-legal-to-use-the-monsters-and-locations-of-H-P-Lovecrafts-Cthulhu-Mythos-in-my-own-published-writings for some potentially related material involving characters and locations from H.P. Lovecraft. H. P. Lovecraft apparently wanted other writers to use the characters in their own stories in order to create a larger world involving the characters. If it can be argued that the people who wrote the Original Gaming License had the same intention, that could be a strong precedent. (Not a lawyer. Don’t pretend to be one. I’m an engineer. It should be remembered that engineers view bending steel and changing the course of mighty rivers as routine.)
It’s the general opinion of lawyers that they will indeed be in some pain here. Unfortunately, so will everyone else, particularly in the US where legal protections from large corporations are basically non-existent.
Generally it’s expected they will lose (in multiple different ways), it’s just going not going to be fast or painless, and someone like me cannot really afford to take that fight.
The details are complicated, but it’s the general belief that they both don’t have the legal right to revoke the OGL 1.0a (due to lack of any mechanisms to due so, something the both its creator and the lawyer that wrote say is intentional) and even if they did they probably don’t have all that much protection under copyright anyway.
But such things are extremely expensive to prove.
Unfortunately, the way to turn a billion dollar franchise into a 100 million dollar one, is to do shit like this—and then do damage control to keep from going from bad to worse.
People always undervalue the ecosystems behind great brands. The existence of all that 3rd party content adds value to the core brand—and it was all developed without an iota of risk and capital on their part. That’s ∞ incremental ROÍ. What can they possibly do in-house to beat that?
If i had a competing product, I’d take one look at what the’re doing, and do the exact opposite. I’d put together a $100,000,000 pool of money to entice y’all away and seed your development, then promote the hell out of your product and do whatever I could to ensure your success. Like no license fees at all up to a substantial threshold of sales.
You know, like Epic Games with their MegaGrants for Unreal Engine. Hasbro is 100 years old this year. Epic a mere 32. Epic’s valuation is ½ that of Hasbro ($32 Billion).
They funded Unreal mostly from shareware proceeds from Epic Pinball, and it certainly wasn’t Unreal itself that got them to $32 billion, but rather the ecosystem they built and encouraged around it.
Now deez nutz are tanking 25 years of ecosystem growth and risk tanking it back to what they paid for it in ‘98 ($325 million). Good Job, Suits!
[Edit: I suppose I should clarify for a possible small subset of the audience, what D&D developers do and Unreal Engine game developers do isn’t particularly portable; they’re not direct competitors. But I think the business model is sound. I don’t know who might be in a position to implement it, even on a smaller scale than Epic’s $100 million]
I’m reminded of Broderbund, which sold to TLC/Softkey for $420 million in ‘98. TLC was purchased by Mattel the next year for $3.6 billion—which tanked Mattel’s stock, the shareholders forced out the CEO. But 42% of Brøderbund’s workforce were laid off, which really crippled its future. I suspect LucasArts picked up a lot of them.
Ironically, my wife worked for ILM back then, but moved to the game industry a few years ago for more stability. Hollywood CGI isn’t what it used to be…
(I did have to look up dates and numbers; my memory isn’t THAT good).
What could Hasbro possibly do to compete with all of the supplemental stuff around their core product? They could hire as many of the people who were making that supplemental material as they can and have them do their thing in house.
Sure, Hasbro isn’t going to do it. But you were asking for what they could do, and that’s basically it.
Of course, they wouldn’t be able to hire even half of those people. Any of those people they do have will have a reason to be disgruntled day -15 or more. That’s probably not going to be conducive to having a friendly and healthy work environment. But I’m not sure they care about that.
I’m deeply sorry you had to go through all of that man. all i can tell you, is that i hope you’ll get all this schlop sorted out.
Thank you for both comic and explanation/griping.
My sympathies. Your interpretation aligns with everybody’s I’ve read thus far – may WotC figure it out sooner than later and back off.