Tabletop gamers are pissed off because Wizards of the Coast is trying to change the terms of the Open Gaming License.
The updated rules impose a bunch of new restrictions on third-party content, and they're trying to de-authorize the old license so that everyone has to use the new one. (See https://manifold.markets/LarsDoucet/will-wizards-of-the-coast-succeed-i and https://manifold.markets/copacetic/will-wotchasbro-sue-paizo-before-au)
This market resolves YES if WOTC publishes the new license and tells everyone to use it, and it's not so watered down as to be mostly no change. For the purpose of this market I'm ignoring if it's actually enforceable. Still a YES if they don't try to de-authorize OGL 1.0, as long as all new wizards content is under OGL 1.1 and the terms are mostly the same as they were in the leak.
"Watered down" is a fuzzy criteria, if it comes to that then I'll solicit feedback from other Manifolders.
Resolves NO if it's 2024 and there's no updated license, or if they publish an official "we've heard your thoughts, and..." type surrender statement.
Close date updated to 2023-12-31 11:59 pm
1,000🏅 Top traders
| # | Trader | Total profit |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | Ṁ228 | |
| 2 | Ṁ17 | |
| 3 | Ṁ14 | |
| 4 | Ṁ13 | |
| 5 | Ṁ2 |
People are also trading
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons
They've published SRD 5.1 under CC-BY-4.0
This still could be YES, if "all new wizards content is under OGL 1.1 and the terms are mostly the same as they were in the leak". But it's not looking good.
I'm stepping out of this market in case I need to make a judgement call.
@citrinitas Would publishing future content under similarly restrictive terms but without the name OGL count? At this point, any attempt would probably also have to include a re-branding of the terms, to try to dodge the OGL backlash.
@citrinitas Also, if dnd 5.5e/6e has a SRD published with a OGL-1.0 or CC-BY-4.0 licence, would that be enough to resolve this NO? (Even if other content is under an OGL 1.1 equivalent licence?)
without the name OGL
Still counts, I'm trying to go by the terms and not the title in order to exclude that kind of weaseling
SRD with CC-BY, other content under 1.1-equivalent
I hadn't considered that scenario when designing the criteria here. I think, historically, the SRD has been the only really important document published under OGL, and this market should reflect that -- so if the dnd next SRD is published under 1.0a or CC-BY, that should probably be enough to resolve this NO.
Unless someone has a suggestion for "other content" that I should be counting here?
I’m out because it is likely they will issue a license but they also published a surrender statement to me. Really not sure how you will resolve that.
Alright, given this it's probably a good idea to start narrowing down the specifics of how weak the update would need to be to resolve NO.
The only this resolves NO if an updated license is adopted for all future content is if there's "mostly no change" to the terms. This covers the case where WOTC decides to back down, but tries to save face by pushing an update that doesn't really do anything meaningful. This still leaves room for minor technical / bookkeeping changes.
After looking at the draft: 1b (re the VTT policy), 6f (re "hateful content"), possibly 3a would each be enough to make this YES in isolation if unchanged.
@copacetic Looks like they might hit the "watered down" criteria? They claim to be walking back the "back-license", royalty terms, and de-authorizing 1.0, and those seem to have drawn most of the complaints. But there's still a lot more junk in the new terms, and if much of that substantially stays then I think it's still probably YES.
Still planning to solicit feedback if it comes to a judgement call like that, but arguments resolved before updated terms get published get bonus points for not being obvious rationalization.
They canceled the announcement: https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-ogl-announcement-wizards-of-the-coast-1849981365