Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Umbran]

I think your second sentence may not be write. What if that person (X) is currently in a 1.0/1.0a licence agreement with Y, and Y becomes a party to v 1.1? Y appears now to have inconsistent contractual obligations - they have promised WotC to renounce 1.0/1.0a, but have promised X to honour it.

If your license obligations are inconsistent, that means you have violated one or the other, and lose the rights provided by the one you've violated.

So, say I have a D&D 5e ogl supplement I've created, and a Mutants and Masterminds supplement. If I decide to make a OneD&D supplement under v1.1... if Green Ronin doesn't also go v1.1, maybe I lose the right to sell/publish that M&M supplement.

 

[Blue]

Business side? Well…
"Until the legal differences between our partner WotC and 3PP Inc. are settled, we at One Book Shelf decided to stop selling 3PP products. Of course you can still download them from your library if previously purchased and I hope this isn't misconstrued as censorship…"

If this was done on a leak that isn't yet official, or based on official information that isn't yet active (Jan 23rd), then this is absolutely actring in bad faith to every 3PP hosted there.

If this is done on request of WotC/Hasbro, then it's also a bully move showing intent to use push 3PP.

 

[Cadence]

It's really, truly NOT the text of the license. That is the summary text in non-legal language which WOTC sent people to "help them" understand what the actual license says (which is a terrible idea by the way - from a legal perspective). It came with links to the actual text, which have been removed because those links could be traced. This is, most assuredly, not the text of the actual license.

If one cut out the intro and removed the comments... what makes the rest not look like an actual license?

Otherwise I wasn't sure how to read "We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with." and the rest of that paragraph.

Thanks for any professional insight!

 

[overgeeked]

If this was done on a leak that isn't yet official, or based on official information that isn't yet active (Jan 23rd), then this is absolutely actring in bad faith to every 3PP hosted there.

If this is done on request of WotC/Hasbro, then it's also a bully move showing intent to use push 3PP.

It’s not a thing that happened. It’s a hypothetical.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Correct. A few things flow from this:

The so-called OGL 1.1 likely varied in accordance with to whom it was presented. It was specifically tailored for the audience it was delivered to. As it went out under NDA, the recipients weren't supposed to be able to figure out which version they got -- while WotC could figure out who leaked what.

If that is sounding like NOT an "open" license but a "closed" license, that is not some accident of your perception. The so-called "OGL" 1.1, isn't "Open" at all.

It also suggests that WotC is well aware that this is going to cause a $hit-storm, to be blunt, and so they left themselves room to stick-handle and back-track.

After reading this, I was struck by what somebody might do in 2024 when WotC begins publishing OneD&D and stops publishing 5e (if they do; they might not stop right away).

My first instinct? Pull a Paizo with Pathfinder 1 all over again. Treat the so-called OGL 1.1 as the GSL. Publish a 5e based on the 5.1 SRD, make it all explicitly under the OGL 1.0a, and watch every third party and VTT rush to support your product of the One True Game in your FLGS and Kickstarter, while 6e dies in a fire 3-4 years later as Hasbro insists all is well and that 6e outsold 5e. nods

To do this, you'd need some money. Which means Paizo, really. Would Lisa Stevens dare to do it again?

Maybe? I guess we will find out.

Enworld has already put out a pretty solid “5e” very recently.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

The CC licenses are explicitly irrevocable as of at least version 4 (see section 2.a.1 of the CC-BY license, for example). So is the GPL 3.

I don’t have an informed opinion on the legal debate but I have always wished Dancey and/or the lawyers involved were better at this. It’s also just good to have a funded non-profit defending and updating the licenses or you wind up with problems like this.

At the time the OGL was made, it seemed solid enough and WoTC made it clear that the intent was what people were imagining it was.

 

[Catolias]

Correct. A few things flow from this:

The so-called OGL 1.1 likely varied in accordance with to whom it was presented. It was specifically tailored for the audience it was delivered to. As it went out under NDA, the recipients weren't supposed to be able to figure out which version they got -- while WotC could figure out who leaked what.

Sounds like sensible (and normal) business practice. WoTC would then be able to know who is going to be difficult or easier (not easy ) to deal with.

After reading this, I was struck by what somebody might do in 2024 when WotC begins publishing OneD&D and stops publishing 5e (if they do; they might not stop right away).

My first instinct? Pull a Paizo with Pathfinder 1 all over again. Treat the so-called OGL 1.1 as the GSL. Publish a 5e based on the 5.1 SRD, make it all explicitly under the OGL 1.0a, and watch every third party and VTT rush to support your product of the One True Game in your FLGS and Kickstarter, while 6e dies in a fire 3-4 years later as Hasbro insists all is well and that 6e outsold 5e. nods

To do this, you'd need some money. Which means Paizo, really. Would Lisa Stevens dare to do it again?

Maybe? I guess we will find out.

WoTC public statements that there will be no editions going forward—there’s just the OneD&D to rule them (and bind them in the dark)—makes sense in this context: it’s intended to avoid a repeat of what happened to 3.x when 4e arrived.

Initially I wondered why paizo spent time coverting one of its APs into a 5e adventure. I thought it was a lack of confidence in pf2e but maybe it was testing the ground to get an early launch in staking a claim to “support 5e”. Again, though, speculation, speculation, speculation!

I wonder whether paizo or other companies might seek to create separate businesses for each OGL version in order to limit any claims WoTC might make. This might be premature without knowing the exact details of the OGL.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Enworld has already put out a pretty solid “5e” very recently.

A5e? Yes, of course. Difference is, it takes a large print run and distribution deals to get it on FLGS shelves and otherwise in the marketplace - supported by Adv Paths and all the bells, whistles and accessories. It's quite an undertaking to do that. It's something you work up to. It's really HARD to start there.

I'm not knocking the content - I'm just saying that the deep pockets necessary to make a go of it as a commercial replacement requires more $, staff, and contacts.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Initially I wondered why paizo spent time coverting one of its APs into a 5e adventure. I thought it was a lack of confidence in pf2e but maybe it was testing the ground to get an early launch in staking a claim to “support 5e”. Again, though, speculation, speculation, speculation!

Paizo did it twice: with Abomination Vaults 5e as well as with Kingmaker 5e.

The main reason they did it is because there are a lot of new gamers in the hobby who have no experience with Paizo, its products, or the production values of its products. They wanted to show those potential new customers that there is another company that puts out high quality adventure products, maybe even better adventure products than WotC creates.

It's not a shocker. Kingmaker was their best selling AP from the PF1 era, and Abomination Vaults is the best selling AP from the new PF2 era. AV is also a shorter adv product and less expensive than Kingmaker, too.

 

[mamba]

Ok, random thought, please shoot holes into it, that is the point…

In order to limit the damage the Oppressive, Gross License 1.1 can do, could a publisher e.g. create a campaign or setting and release one system neutral book and one that contains all the statblocks and whatever else fall under this abomination of a license, and then either release that for free or at least reduce both the content and financial exposure to it?

Doesn’t work for full RPGs or monster manuals, but campaigns / adventures might work. With extracting all the system specific content into one book you could also e.g. create a PF2 version in parallel, ‘just’ convert that part into a PF2 specific book.