We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Alzrius]

I mean if they change the license to something closed going forwards, it will be disappointing; but if they were to really try and nuke all previous material the backlash would be huge. It would be so extreme that I will have to read it in an official document from WotC to believe it.

I wonder if we're misinterpreting what the part about the OGL v1.0a "no longer being an authorized license agreement" means. "Authorization" only comes up in the OGL v1.0a with regard to Section 9, so that might be their way of saying (as people have theorized in several other threads) that Open Game Content published under the OGL v1.1 can't be used with the OGL v1.0a.

Likewise, I'm not at all certain that no one will be able to use the OGL v1.0a if WotC decides to revoke it (which would presumably leave the original v1.0 intact, interestingly enough). The OGL v1.0a might not say it's "irrevocable," but I thought that you could be a sub-licensor if you used Open Game Content from a preexisting OGL v1.0a product. In which case, the revocation on WotC's part is moot.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I mean, if it becomes closed going forwards, doesn't that amount to the same thing? If Paizo/EN Publishing/MCDM/OSR publishers would need to send WotC their revenue data to publish new PF2E/Level Up/K&W/OSR sourcebooks (because their license retroactively became OGL v1.1 when the old one became "unauthorised"), that's pretty much bringing the entire 3rd-party TTRPG industry to their vassalage.

Unless it specifically suggests NEW works can't use the 1.0 license and have to use the 1.1

 

[mamba]

It is very different if it is simply closed for the new material. In that case, Pathfinder, OSR, Level Up, etc. would not be affected. They would just keep using the old OGL.

existing products would remain under 1.0a, even in new print runs, but anything new presumably would have to be under 1.1

 

[Maxperson]

I don't care how many sources they claim to have. There's no way that was written by lawyers for WotC.

 

[Malmuria]

My TRUSTED SOURCES have leaked to me the new "OGL Restricted License" !!!!

OGL Restricted License

This license allows third-party publishers to create and publish content for use with the Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) role-playing game, subject to the following restrictions:

1. Third-party publishers must obtain written permission from Wizards of the Coast before using any D&D intellectual property, including game mechanics, character names, locations, and other copyrighted material.
2. Third-party publishers may not use any D&D intellectual property in a way that creates a direct competitor to the D&D game.
3. Third-party publishers must pay a licensing fee to Wizards of the Coast for the use of any D&D intellectual property. The amount of the fee will be determined by Wizards of the Coast.
4. Third-party publishers must give credit to Wizards of the Coast in all materials published under this license.
5. Wizards of the Coast reserves the right to terminate this license at any time and for any reason.
6. This license is non-transferable and may not be sublicensed by third-party publishers.
7. This license is subject to change at the discretion of Wizards of the Coast.

---

This restricted version of the OGL gives Wizards of the Coast more control over the use of their intellectual property and allows them to charge a licensing fee for its use. It also limits the ability of third-party publishers to create products that compete directly with D&D.

My trusted source is Chat GPT.

 

[Ondath]

Now, moving briefly to @Ondath and the concerns raised-

1. You cannot retroactively cancel the OGL 1.0 and the works created from it. Life doesn't work like that.

2. Is it possible that Hasbro could "revoke" (stop offering for acceptance) the prior OGL, and could this affect new works? Sure, that might be possible. But really answering that would require me to think about stuff. And I'm not here to think. I'm here to chew bubblegum and mock bards, and I'm all out of bubblegum.

I fervently want your interpretation to be true, Snarf, but my panic was mostly induced by the lawyer in the reddit thread arguing that rendering OGL v1.0a "unauthorised" would actually cause 1.0a to be unusable going forward. They implied that they have clients that produce 3PP content with OGL and that they warned them for the worst, which leads me to think that the lawyers are actually preparing for the worst.

That said, none of this should stop us from bashing bards. Where do they get their phoney magical powers from, anyway?

 

[Alzrius]

My TRUSTED SOURCES have leaked to me the new "OGL Restricted License" !!!!



My trusted source is Chat GPT.

Fun fact: WotC is really, truly, actually having ChatGPT write the OGL v1.1 for them.

 

[Ondath]

Unless it specifically suggests NEW works can't use the 1.0 license and have to use the 1.1

Well if that's the way it goes, I'm expecting a lot of people to announce pre-alpha versions of their OGL v1.0a content just before OGL v1.1's official release (probably myself included).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't care how many sources they claim to have. There's no way that was written by lawyers for WotC.

I mean, I think we can take it as read that even if it isn't a joke, this is intended as a summary of 1.1, rather than word-for-word 1.1, because yes otherwise it's prima facie laughable.

Honestly it seems a little unlikely that even WotC would be as silly to even have terms which approximated to these but, I guess we'll see.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That said, none of this should stop us from bashing bards. Where do they get their phoney magical powers from, anyway?

Theft. Has to be theft. Can't trust a bard farther than you can throw 'em.

And you have to believe me- I worked hard to trust bards. I've thrown them from the highest cliffs in the land!

I fervently want your interpretation to be true, Snarf, but my panic was mostly induced by the lawyer in the reddit thread arguing that rendering OGL v1.0a "unauthorised" would actually cause 1.0a to be unusable going forward. They implied that they have clients that produce 3PP content with OGL and that they warned them for the worst, which leads me to think that the lawyers are actually preparing for the worst.

So, on this- always be careful with legal advice that (1) you didn't pay for, and (2) you have found on the internet. When people assert confident opinions about the law, I am concerned that they might not be lawyers, because everyone knows that real life is like the Fugitive, in that we are looking for a one-armed lawyer ... just so they won't say, "And on the other hand ...."

Anyway, worrying is interest paid on a debt that will never come due. Let's wait and see what the actual license terms look like.

Finally, I am confident that Bards will be removed from OneD&D. I have two trusted sources for it- me, and my posterior.