dmdave
patreon
Creator Original Open License Preview
🕑 Added 2023-01-06 23:07:06 +0000 UTCHey everyone!
I just got off the phone with Noah Downs, my attorney, to ask if I should go ahead and share this, and he gave me the go-ahead.
This is the COOL, the Creator Original Open License. Modeled somewhat after the original 1.0a Open Gaming License by Wizards of the Coast, this new agreement fixes the loopholes that Wizards is trying to exploit in the new 1.1 "open" gaming license.
The COOL is 100% irrevocable.
Section 4 of the 1.0a open gaming license lacks the term "irrevocable." The COOL says clearly in section 5 that it is a "perpetual, irrevocable (except as otherwise provided herein), worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license to Use the Base Content."
Read below to see what the "herein" is.
All versions are acceptable.
Similar to the original 1.0a's section 9, this agreement works with any authorized version. So even if we change it, sections 5 and 9 combined make it so you can use it, well... forever. And seeing as this OGL fiasco is one of the biggest "piss Dave off moments" in my professional life, I can't foresee myself ever reneging on this part of the agreement.
Not that it matters...
This is all going into a non-profit trust.
You'll notice that this is currently attributed to my business entity, Hamrick Brands, LLC. This is temporary as we are in the process of forming a trust with approximately 8 board members, all from different backgrounds, business sizes, and walks of life. Because it's a 501-3c, it'll take a bit longer to get it set up, so we're using this as a placeholder until we can transfer it over. However, the paperwork is already being filed for the trust, so it's underway.
Limited revocation right protects us (and you) from future NuTSRs.
The only "controversial" clause is the limited revocation right in section 12. Essentially, this states that if a creator does something gross with the content or the agreement (racist, sexist, etc.) that the board can vote to terminate the agreement. And this is via good-faith discretion.
While I'm all for free speech, seeing what's happening with the new TSR company and their revision of Star Frontiers (Google it... it's terrible), I understand why companies like Wizards and Chaosium would add such clauses. Often, it's hard to the average consumer to separate third-party content from the licensors. So while you and I might know that NuTSR is not actually Wizards of the Coasts, the average person may blame (or sue) Wizards for the content.
When I saw similar clauses in other open license agreements, my gut reaction was that something like this could be a very slippery slope. This is why a) we wanted to put this into the trust so that I'm not the only stakeholder in "what's right or wrong" (I am admittedly too imperfect for such decisions) and b) we added the good-faith discretion.
The rules are not yet included in this.
I have not yet posted a working copy of my work or forthcoming SRD into the document. However, those will come very soon once we iron out some kinks. This is just to let folks preview it and also apply a "time stamp," if you will, demonstrating that this is our document.
The copyright on the COOL exists mostly to protect us and creators from folks stealing our words and misconstruing them or altering the terms of our agreement, especially as it is still in early review form. While I think the COOL is already known enough for folks to know that if something similar popped up, the public would know that it was taken and altered, I'd rather be on the safe side.
Furthermore, this isn't an "official" version just yet. I want to make sure we get plenty of feedback from the community before we go live with it. And I want it locked up under the forthcoming trust.
I want to be as open as possible to creators.
Gatekeeping sucks. That's why I want to make sure that this agreement meets the following criteria:
1) Anyone can use it to create content using our derivative works when they go live forever and always.
2) Once it enters the trust, even I have to abide by the rules in the document, including adding the contents to the back of my books and sticking with the guidelines set forth in section 12.
3) We have made it impossible to revoke this in any way, shape, or format, with the exception of section 12. Once this monster is alive, it is undefeatable. So if somehow, in the year 2145, DMDave is a crazy robot hellbent on destroying the future TTRPG community, this agreement will prevent roboDave from doing what we're witnessing Wizards do to its own agreement now.
I've attached the document below. Let me know what you think. Keep in mind it's a legal document, so not exactly exciting. But still!
Comments
The Lorelock
This is fantastic. Any chance that there could be a q&a via zoom or something once the full version is out?
isaak bandon
I'm sorry. I'm a little confused. I currently make content for 5e and post it too a dedicated homebrew subreddit. I was wondering if there will be a place where I can do that for COOL? Distribute free items for others to use
DM Dave
lol that's from the lawyer
DM Dave
Hey Evan! Yeah, for sure. That part so far has had the most scrutiny, and I'm honestly not a fan of it when I see it in other documents (Chaosium has one similar), but it's definitely a necessary evil lest we end up with some NuTSR stuff attached to it. So we might actually add in some "by-laws" to what it means exactly.
DM Dave
Yup. It'll be all locked up in a non-profit and be offered for free like Linux.
Dan Gragert
I've been seeing your content through Tom Cartos for like the last year i've been able to afford patreons for content- I haven't even looked at whats here. I literally just supported on principal just for things like this. the amazing content is just a bonus. Appreciate you, good sir. Thanks for what you're doing.
Terry
First paragraph of your disclaimer is golden! ššš»
Monkey DM
Hey dave, for the section 12 of the license, although I understand the reasoning, would it be possible to add, "can revoke the license if licensee was made aware of the breach and didn't fix it within 30 days". This way if there is some non intentional bad writing for example, it gives awareness to the person, and time to correct it.
isaak bandon
GMDave (DM a copyright term...) , I have to ask. Will there be a community hub for COOL content? Like a website or subreddit? I hope so
DM Dave
Haha fair enough
DM Dave
Yep! I've already talked to Andrew about it.
Roosevelt Cooper
Awesome, looking forward to it. Because the bottom line is you're Ryan Dancey. We're not necessarily worried about YOU going back on this. It's whoever comes after you.
Brbmonkeytime
@DMDave Plans to put it into a Foundry VTT SRD module? Any way I can help there? What with the OGL 1.1 I do wonder how it might impact Foundry. At the same time with importable code/GitHub/etc good luck to WoTC
Brbmonkeytime
Supposedly cannot copyright game mechanics. As far as creatures etc supposedly as long as slightly changed. Perhaps... Mind flayer - Mind Bender https://youtu.be/oPV7-NCmWBQ All depends on one's temperament for legal risk. I've dealt enough with legal I just as soon proactively swerve wide around potentially avoidable lawyer bills/interactions/court. What Dave is doing is one thing I totally get but i mean doing something gray potential to get served scenario.
DM Dave
I had the same question to my attorney and he had a good answer for it that I'm not smart enough to repeat. I'll get him to help with me a Q/A. This, too, is my only trepidation with the agreement. I trust me to make the right decisions, but who knows what future Dave has in store?
I've always attributed creator content, to you, to Michael Ghelfi Studios, and to WotC, for all externally created content on my streams, as part of my intro. I just wanted to make sure I was supporting you as a major content creator that I use and rely on as this OGL battle wages, and that I can do my best to respect you and the content you've created for my table, regardless of any modifications I've made to it as it has played out *at* the table.
DM Dave
Always. Iām pretty lax so long as people give credit and donāt resell stuff as is
@DMDave, that's very much appreciated. Also, in the past, I've used your content in my streams. While I have a tiny (read: really non-existent) following outside of my players, would you be opposed to my use of your content in my streams if I were doing (generally) 5e streams? I want to make sure that I respect the creator as much as the content, and I can see a possibility for a schism here. My first run at being a 5e DM was running The Frostgauntlet. I included The Curse of Duskhollow in my Curse of Strahd game, and now I'm running The Shadow Hotel. All have been a blast, and I plan on running a longer campaign based on a number of the Dungeons & Lairs modules, chained together for my players. Historically, I've streamed some of this content, and not streamed other parts (depending on my group at the table at the time). I know that what I create is derivative of what you've created for us all. I understand the stated intent to keep it open, to grow the game the way the 1.0a OGL seemed to be. But I also want to respect you and your position, and I want to support you as you seemingly tilt at windmills. How can those of us who create derivative content from your content AND the official WotC content best do so? Do we leave out your content? Do we specifically attribute your content to you? I feel lost here, and while I intend to make it clear to WotC that I *am* lost here, I'm a nobody in the real scheme of things right now, so while I can share a voice, it's a voice that doesn't really impact their bottom line.
Ozpib
Can't creators like yourself just make an adventure and say it's compatible with 5e as well as other systems, but it's not actually built for 5e specifically? Also assuming you don't use any content from wotc like names and places and such
Roosevelt Cooper
I'll let Dave answer this but I asked him about this in discord and my understanding is that his new content there will be ways you can still use it with 5e.
Roosevelt Cooper
Looks great. My only concern would be clause 12. While I totally understand why you have it and what's going on with NuTSR is absolutely disgusting, what's to stop the Licensor from using clause 12 as a loophole to do what Wizards is doing right now?
DM Dave
Thereās a big list of stuff that is trademarked, mostly specific names and their trade dress. I also canāt cut/paste content without using the OGL to do it. But as far as how the game functions, no. They canāt legally trademark or patent that stuff. Thatās why you could make and publish a Monopoly knock off and never owe them anything, just so long as you avoided calling it Monopoly.
Ozpib
So someone can basically just recreate the same mechanics under a new name and make their own actually open ogl
DM Dave
Nah. You canāt copyright mechanics.
DM Dave
Yes they will. Letās just say I know the āsource codeā pretty well, so itāll be easy to convert, especially for adventures. In fact weāre going to start publishing without the OGL altogether since our content is so rules independent
Roosevelt Cooper
I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that you cannot copyright game mechanics. As long as you call everything something different and don't call it the same thing that Wizards calls it, my understanding is that is perfectly legal.
I'd like to start here by saying that I love your content. Yours is one of two outside content creators that are 5E integrated that I've used or paid for. TBQH, I do have concerns about the 1.1 OGL, and I completely understand your stance. My only concern is that I don't want to start spending hundreds or thousands of dollars on a new system, a new set of rules, and new base content, and I don't want to have to move to a new VTT as all of my players are geographically distant from me. While I can understand possibly not wanting to indicate being specifically "5e compatible", will the designs still generally be balanced if we follow the 5e (even the 1.0a SRD) ruleset, or will we have to go "all-in" on a new system to keep using your new content moving forward?
Ozpib
Hey Dave a question concerning creating content and how it might have any connection to wotc and dungeons and dragons; 5e or otherwise. The fact that the game uses the d20 die along with the other ones. do they have any control or copyright over another game system also using these dice? Because as I see it what makes DND what it is, is just a system of rules. If I create my own system and basically use the same kind of mechanics and rules that 5e has, is that infringement?
DM Dave
haha basically I'm also talking to a couple other publishers who have open agreements about using their systems.
Noxlux013
Man, now I want to make my own game and OGL. Seems the perfect time to do it.
