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

[The-Magic-Sword]

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).

True, but OneDND doesn't exist yet, and I imagine siloing THAT content off is their goal.

 

[mamba]

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 ...."

from the reddit thread

"So, they unfortunately can de-authorize the old OGL. OGL 1.0a is perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, but it is not irrevocable. De-authorization and revocation function effectively the same here.
Because the old OGL states that you may continue to use any authorized version, and is fully revocable, having OGL 1.1 de-authorize OGL 1.0a is an effective revocation/de-authorization of 1.0a.

However, even though it's permissible under contract law, it does not mean it's an equitable result. This could lead to a lawsuit from relying on 1.0a for so long, only to have it be quickly switched Indiana Jones style.

As a general disclaimer, while I am a lawyer in the gaming/tabletop industry, this comment is not legal advice - it's for informational purposes only, and does not create an attorney-client relationship."

 

[Sacrosanct]

from the reddit thread

"So, they unfortunately can de-authorize the old OGL. OGL 1.0a is perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, but it is not irrevocable. De-authorization and revocation function effectively the same here.
Because the old OGL states that you may continue to use any authorized version, and is fully revocable, having OGL 1.1 de-authorize OGL 1.0a is an effective revocation/de-authorization of 1.0a.

However, even though it's permissible under contract law, it does not mean it's an equitable result. This could lead to a lawsuit from relying on 1.0a for so long, only to have it be quickly switched Indiana Jones style.

As a general disclaimer, while I am a lawyer in the gaming/tabletop industry, this comment is not legal advice - it's for informational purposes only, and does not create an attorney-client relationship."

That lawyer needs to look up what the definition of "perpetual" is, to make that statement. If something is "never ending", how can it be revoked?

 

[mamba]

That lawyer needs to look up what the definition of "perpetual" is, to make that statement. If something is "never ending", how can it be revoked?

I am not a lawyer, but he makes the distinction between perpetual and irrevocable. Basically if you published something under 1.0a, you can continue to do so. If you want to publish anything new under it, you can no longer do that because it has been revoked / de-authorized. So any new material by anyone can be published under 1.1 only.

Not saying he is correct, I have no idea, but that to me seems to be the argument he is making

I kinda feel that if WotC thought they could do it, they would have done so with 4e / PF already (or they learned from that and this is why it is called OGL 1.1 rather than GSL 2.0), but I cannot say for sure either way

 

[Art Waring]

If they could have revoked the 1.0a by now they certainly would have (see 4e GSL's original poison pill). It's an argument that has been ongoing for 20 years.

This is likely a misinterpretation do to the fact that this is likely second hand, or possibly even third-to fourth-hand information without any actual documentation to go with it. I am concerned about the 1.1, but not for reasons as severe as they claim.

I could see them imposing no forward compatibility with the 1.0a & the 1.1 using closed game content, but that means they each go their own way. Being able to revoke the 1.0a OGL would mean potentially putting companies like Paizo out of business in a few months, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Ondath]

I am not a lawyer, but he makes the distinction between perpetual and irrevocable. Basically if you published something under 1.0a, you can continue to do so. If you want to publish anything new under it, you can no longer do that because it has been revoked / de-authorized. So any new material by anyone can be published under 1.1 only.

Not saying he is correct, I have no idea, but that to me seems to be the argument he is making

I kinda feel that if WotC thought they could do it, they would have done so with 4e / PF already (or they learned from that and this is why it is called OGL 1.1 rather than GSL 2.0), but I cannot say for sure either way

Pretty much how I understood it. @pemerton had made this point before, while the OGL as a license, once obtained, is perpetual and worldwide, it still requires you to enter into a contact with WotC in order to obtain it. In order to enter that contract, there needs to be (1) an offer from WotC, (2) something that the contract offers and (3) a clear sign that you've accepted that contract. If WotC stops offering OGL v1.0a (which is separate from revoking the license from those who previously held it, which is what they cannot do under the perpetuity clause), then you can no longer get OGL v1.0a since (1) becomes missing.

 

[Alzrius]

That lawyer needs to look up what the definition of "perpetual" is, to make that statement. If something is "never ending", how can it be revoked?

Apparently there's a difference between something with a perpetual duration and actively terminating something. In D&D terms, it's the difference between a spell with a duration of "permanent" and one that has a (D) notation after its listed duration (which in 3.5 meant that it was "dismissible" by the caster, who in this case is WotC).

Here's a quote from a law firm's website which talks about this:

If your licensing agreement is silent on restrictions, revocability, and termination (meaning it contains no language regarding these issues), your ability to terminate likely depends on the duration of the agreement. Many courts have found that non-exclusive perpetual agreements that are silent as to revocability are revocable at will. In regard to non-exclusive term agreements (which set a fixed timeframe for the licensee’s rights) that are silent as to revocability, many courts have conversely found that they are not capable of being terminated during the term.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Pure greed. Other people are making too much money with their toys so they’re going to nuke most of the industry to get their cash.

Doubtful

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Being able to revoke the 1.0a OGL would mean potentially putting companies like Paizo out of business in a few months, it doesn't make any sense.

I mean, it would absolutely make sense to anyone who didn't care about the impact on the RPG industry and didn't believe the bad PR they might accrue would be meaningful given D&D is laughably dominant.

Which may well apply to the various Microsoft bods running Hasbro and WotC right now.

Or not! We'll see.

I think it'd be weird if this much fuss was being made if there wasn't some basis for this, given the people involved, but who knows.

 

[Pjack]

Incandescent rage. I should not be surprised that a corporation would burn decades of goodwill for the bottom line. And yet: here we are.