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

[mamba]

I'd be a lot more worried about this if we didn't have Wayback Machine archives of WotC's OGL FAQs, both 1.0 and 2.0. As appeared in both versions of the FAQ:

not sure that helps much "what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version"

 

[Greg K]

I thought Peter and Ryan Dancey both stated that the OGL 1.0 (a?) was designed to be irrevocable (iother than a breach of terms) so that fans of D&D could use it no matter what future owners do with D&D.

 

[pemerton]

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:

That quote is under a heading discussing termination for breach. It's also not the case that the OGL "is silent on restrictions, revocability, and termination (meaning it contains no language regarding these issues)". Clause 13 of the OGL deals with termination for breach.

If the license granted under the OGL is in fact revocable at will by WotC, that is something that no one seems to have noticed in the past 20 years, including WotC up until now. That doesn't mean it's not the case, but I think some more argument is needed.

 

[pemerton]

I believe the relevant legal term of art is "reasonable reliance".

I'm not sure if, in US law, reliance on a publisher's FAQ will generate binding consequences for the publisher. But it does suggest that WotC did not have the view, at that time, that licences granted pursuant to the OGL were revocable at will.

 

[BrokenTwin]

On one hand the terms in the leak seem unrealistically, cartoonishly bad. On the other hand, I never put it past corporations to do cartoonishly bad things if they think doing so will pad their bottom line.

 

[Alzrius]

That quote is under a heading discussing termination for breach.

It is, but I interpreted (possibly erroneously) that because the paragraph in question wasn't directly talking about issues of breach, that meant that it had moved on to a more general examination of the topic as part of a closing summary, rather than continuing to talk about that specific reason for termination.

 

[EpicureanDM]

If the license granted under the OGL is in fact revocable at will by WotC, that is something that no one seems to have noticed in the past 20 years, including WotC up until now. That doesn't mean it's not the case, but I think some more argument is needed.

People keep getting hung up on the common wisdom about revocability and the OGL - which this website has perpetuated - while missing the fact that WotC's not going to revoke OGL 1.0. They're going to deauthorize it. This comment earlier in the thread spells it out.

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.

 

[Incenjucar]

I require more information than a "leak" to accept anyone is as bad at their job as this. The HBO content slayer exists, so it's not impossible, but the language presented is clearly not by a corporate legal team.

 

[Alzrius]

People keep getting hung up on the common wisdom about revocability and the OGL - which this website has perpetuated - while missing the fact that WotC's not going to revoke OGL 1.0. They're going to deauthorize it. This comment earlier in the thread spells it out.

Yeah, but doesn't that ignore that sub-licensors themselves can in turn make the offer (instead of WotC), and so you can produce new Open Game Content under the OGL v1.0a so long as you use Open Game Content from an existing product to do so? I thought that idea was put forward in another thread here.

 

[Ondath]

Yeah, but doesn't that ignore that sub-licensors themselves can in turn make the offer (instead of WotC), and so you can produce new Open Game Content under the OGL v1.0a so long as you use Open Game Content from an existing product to do so? I thought that idea was put forward in another thread here.

The lawyer in the reddit thread claims this wouldn't apply because all the sublicenses granted by other publishers depend on the original living document from WotC, and if WotC deauthorises OGL v1.0a, they would also lose that right. Of course, I don't know if their claim is correct, but if this is the case then a lot of companies will be changing the way they do business very soon.