Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
What's All This About The OGL Going Away?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="bmcdaniel" data-source="post: 8887942" data-attributes="member: 1772"><p>I'm still seeing a lot of confusion about OGL 1.1 and what it means. In order to create a digestible summary that can be easily referenced, in this post I'm going to reiterate the legal conclusion I reached above, with a very minimum of commentary. In particular, this post will not explain or analyze the legal conclusions. Of course, if anyone disagrees with my conclusions, I invite further discussion.</p><p>-------------</p><p>Based on the leaked version of OGL 1.1:</p><p>1. WOTC is <u>not</u> attempting to <u>unilaterally</u> revoke OGL 1.0(a).</p><p></p><p>2. WOTC <u>is</u> attempting to have OGL 1.0(a) users <u>agree</u> to revoke OGL 1.0(a) by assenting to OGL 1.1.</p><p></p><p>3. The method that WOTC has specified to assent to OGL 1.1 is likely to lead to many persons inadvertently and apparently assenting to OGL 1.1. In particular, WOTC asserts that persons can assent to OGL 1.1 by "use" of D&D content, including D&D content that appears in SRD 5.1 that has been licensed for use under OGL 1.0(a).</p><p></p><p>4. It is possible that courts will not treat "use" of D&D content as assenting to OGL 1.1. Persons who do not wish to assent to OGL 1.1, including users of OGL 1.0(a), can substantially increase their chances of prevailing in court if they unambiguously communicate to WOTC that they do not assent to OGL 1.1.</p><p>-------------</p><p>Commentary (keyed to the legal conclusions above):</p><p>0. As far as I am aware, as of the date of this post, the leaked version of OGL 1.1 has not been confirmed or issued by WOTC. It is quite possible that the leaked version of OGL 1.1 is not accurate and/or that WOTC never issues the leaked version of OGL 1.1.</p><p></p><p>1. Because WOTC is not purporting to unilaterally revoke OGL 1.0(a), discussions of whether licenses are revocable generally or because they lack specific words ("irrevocable") are purely academic. Similarly, discussions of Section 9 of OGL 1.0(a) and the meaning of "authorize" therein are purely academic. Of course, WOTC may attempt to unilaterally revoke OGL 1.0(a) in the future, in which case such matters will be relevant.</p><p></p><p>2. Nobody disputes that (as a general matter) WOTC and any particular user of OGL 1.0(a) may agree to revoke that user's rights under OGL 1.0(a).</p><p></p><p>3. Nothing more to say.</p><p></p><p>4. Whether any user of OGL 1.0(a) should communicate non-assent to WOTC, and the best form in which to do so, should be discussed by the user and their legal counsel.</p><p>-------------</p><p>In matters of law, there are complexities, nuance and exceptions to everything, including things said above. Don't expect a complete discussion in a forum post. Moreover, even if there are no complexities, nuance and exceptions that apply to your situation, there may be consequences that apply to you that you should consider. The fact that I don't know what complexities, nuance, exceptions and consequences apply to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that the things said above are not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. The above is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation after entering into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bmcdaniel, post: 8887942, member: 1772"] I'm still seeing a lot of confusion about OGL 1.1 and what it means. In order to create a digestible summary that can be easily referenced, in this post I'm going to reiterate the legal conclusion I reached above, with a very minimum of commentary. In particular, this post will not explain or analyze the legal conclusions. Of course, if anyone disagrees with my conclusions, I invite further discussion. ------------- Based on the leaked version of OGL 1.1: 1. WOTC is [U]not[/U] attempting to [U]unilaterally[/U] revoke OGL 1.0(a). 2. WOTC [U]is[/U] attempting to have OGL 1.0(a) users [U]agree[/U] to revoke OGL 1.0(a) by assenting to OGL 1.1. 3. The method that WOTC has specified to assent to OGL 1.1 is likely to lead to many persons inadvertently and apparently assenting to OGL 1.1. In particular, WOTC asserts that persons can assent to OGL 1.1 by "use" of D&D content, including D&D content that appears in SRD 5.1 that has been licensed for use under OGL 1.0(a). 4. It is possible that courts will not treat "use" of D&D content as assenting to OGL 1.1. Persons who do not wish to assent to OGL 1.1, including users of OGL 1.0(a), can substantially increase their chances of prevailing in court if they unambiguously communicate to WOTC that they do not assent to OGL 1.1. ------------- Commentary (keyed to the legal conclusions above): 0. As far as I am aware, as of the date of this post, the leaked version of OGL 1.1 has not been confirmed or issued by WOTC. It is quite possible that the leaked version of OGL 1.1 is not accurate and/or that WOTC never issues the leaked version of OGL 1.1. 1. Because WOTC is not purporting to unilaterally revoke OGL 1.0(a), discussions of whether licenses are revocable generally or because they lack specific words ("irrevocable") are purely academic. Similarly, discussions of Section 9 of OGL 1.0(a) and the meaning of "authorize" therein are purely academic. Of course, WOTC may attempt to unilaterally revoke OGL 1.0(a) in the future, in which case such matters will be relevant. 2. Nobody disputes that (as a general matter) WOTC and any particular user of OGL 1.0(a) may agree to revoke that user's rights under OGL 1.0(a). 3. Nothing more to say. 4. Whether any user of OGL 1.0(a) should communicate non-assent to WOTC, and the best form in which to do so, should be discussed by the user and their legal counsel. ------------- In matters of law, there are complexities, nuance and exceptions to everything, including things said above. Don't expect a complete discussion in a forum post. Moreover, even if there are no complexities, nuance and exceptions that apply to your situation, there may be consequences that apply to you that you should consider. The fact that I don't know what complexities, nuance, exceptions and consequences apply to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that the things said above are not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. The above is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation after entering into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
What's All This About The OGL Going Away?
Top