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

[Alzrius]

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.

Well, I'm no lawyer, but I question that interpretation, as "authorization" only seems to be a thing in the OGL v1.0a with regard to Section 9. Also, the "depend on the original living document" aspect of that line of reasoning seems dubious to me. Where in the OGL v1.0a does it suggest that?

And, if we want to get very technical, that leak doesn't say that they're deauthorizing the original OGL v1.0 either, just v1.0a.

 

[Greg K]

Can they deauthorize it for another version? I recall Ryan Dancey and Peter both stating that the intent behind the original version of the OGL, unlike the SRD, was to ensure fans could use it regardless of what future owners do with the property.

 

[Stonesnake]

Wow, I guess this thread blew up. A few things have happened since I posted this original thread:

1) I have heard from other reliable sources that have confirmed that what we have posted so far is legitimate in its current form.

2) I didn't post this to get clicks, trolls, or anything like that. I am genuinely concerned for the future of this hobby if even half of this is true. I have been playing role-playing games since I was a little kid, nearly weekly for over 40 years. I love this hobby, and if this is true (and I believe it is), then I wanted to make sure we all got in front of it as soon as possible.

3) Yes, some of this language seems strange when you first read it, but there is precedent for WOTC's attorneys being cheeky in their language. See this quote from their Fan Content Policy: "#5. No bad stuff. We have the right to stop or restrict your use of Wizards’ IP at any time—for any reason or no reason—including when we think your use is inappropriate, offensive, damaging, or disparaging (and we’ll make that call in our sole discretion). If this happens, you must immediately take down your Fan Content or face the Demogorgon (yeah, the big bad is back from being on loan)."

4) We are fans of Level Up! William Fischer works directly on most of our 5E material, and I know or have worked with most of the developers on Level Up!

 

[Ondath]

Well, I'm no lawyer, but I question that interpretation, as "authorization" only seems to be a thing in the OGL v1.0a with regard to Section 9.

Well, since a lot of people depended on Section 9 to say they could stay in v1.0a without switching to v1.1 (since Section 9 is also what allows people to mix-and-match license versions with the content they make), authorisation factoring in Section 9 does seem pretty relevant to me.

Also, the "depend on the original living document" aspect of that line of reasoning seems dubious to me. Where in the OGL v1.0a does it suggest that?

I believe the line of reasoning is that, while the OGL copyright notice allows you to mark your game content as under the OGL, the notice itself is, for weird legal shenanigans, not under the OGL. The license text is under the copyright of WotC, and that means that any reproduction of the OGL by sublicensees still uses the copyrighted notice by Wizards. For instance, this is what Evil Hat Productions' OGL text looks like, even though FATE has nothing to do with D&D:

15 COPYRIGHT NOTICE


Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.


Fate Core System and Fate Accelerated Edition © 2013 by Evil Hat Productions, LLC. Developed, authored, and edited by Leonard Balsera, Brian Engard, Jeremy Keller, Ryan Macklin, Mike Olson, Clark Valentine, Amanda Valentine, Fred Hicks, and Rob Donoghue.

This then seems to imply that the license text itself is something that's separate from the OGL, and the OGL's validity stems from the original copyrighted license text that belongs to Wizards. As a result (the logic goes), if WotC deauthorises OGL v1.0a in a new version of the license, their change trickles down to sublicensees, and this might stop them from issuing OGL v1.0a licenses too.

Of course, this is very, very different from what Dancey & co. intended when they first designed the OGL. But mind you, the people in charge of D&D (and WotC at large) are not those people, and it's the second group that now decides how the OGL should be interpreted. If WotC goes for the worst-case scenario and decides to endanger the entire OGL-dependent side of the industry, things will inevitably go to court. Perhaps WotC might lose and OGL v1.0a might stay because the license was intended to be available forever. But even to get that result, there'd need to be a protracted legal battle against Hasbro. And that can't be good news for the hobby in general.

TL;DR: They're altering the deal. Let's pray they don't alter it further.

 

[Cadence]

If this was an MtG board it feels like Dancey's representations about the OGL and IANAL promissory estoppel musings would be everywhere.

(For whatever good or lack of good that would be).

 

[Clint_L]

On one hand the terms in the leak seem unrealistically, cartoonishly bad...

Yeah, can we just stop there? It's so painfully, obviously, stupidly fake that it makes my brain hurt. It's like if a twelve year old with English as a third language wrote it. If nothing else (and there is a lot else), don't you think the inability to use capital letters correctly is a dead giveaway? I've seen solicitations from a "Nigerian prince" that were more convincing.

 

[MockingBird]

Well at least the show that's about to happen will be good. Gonna be a interesting new year.

 

[Ondath]

Yeah, can we just stop there? It's so painfully, obviously, stupidly fake that it makes my brain hurt. It's like if a twelve year old with English as a third language wrote it. If nothing else (and there is a lot else), don't you think the inability to use capital letters correctly is a dead giveaway? I've seen solicitations from a "Nigerian prince" that were more convincing.

And what does continuously insulting the people who are taking the claims seriously get you, exactly?

Also note that one of the two people making the claims is a Paizo veteran who knows people in WotC (and who has posted again to the thread to say that they confirmed these news from several other sources). Don't you think it's odd they'd risk their reputation by making such a huge claim if they had no backing?

 

[Alzrius]

Well, since a lot of people depended on Section 9 to say they could stay in v1.0a without switching to v1.1 (since Section 9 is also what allows people to mix-and-match license versions with the content they make), authorisation factoring in Section 9 does seem pretty relevant to me.

I don't believe Section 9 works like that. You don't "depend" on it to continue using the OGL v1.0a once the OGL v1.1 comes out, as I understand it. The OGL v1.1 declaration that the OGL v1.0a is no longer "authorized" means, insofar as the OGL v1.0a Section 9 is concerned, that you cannot take Open Game Content released under the OGL v1.1 and release it under the OGL v1.0a, because Section 9 of the OGL v1.0a is what makes that possible. Having the OGL v1.1 expressly declare that the OGL v1.0a is not authorized for that purpose therefore means that you can keep using the OGL v1.0a as it is, just that you can't release Open Game Content under it that was originally released under the OGL v1.1.

I believe the line of reasoning is that, while the OGL copyright notice allows you to mark your game content as under the OGL, the notice itself is, for weird legal shenanigans, not under the OGL. The license text is under the copyright of WotC, and that means that any reproduction of the OGL by sublicensees still uses the copyrighted notice by Wizards. For instance, this is what Evil Hat Productions' OGL text looks like, even though FATE has nothing to do with D&D:

The copyright notice of the OGL itself, under the Section 15, has never made sense to me, because Section 6 outlines that what you need to place under Section 15 is the copyright notice from any work whose Open Game Content you're using (which is recursive in nature, so you'll also be reposting the copyright notice of any of those books as well). But the Open Game License is itself not Open Game Content per se.

That said, the idea that this somehow constitutes a loophole which can prevent people from using new material under the OGL v1.0a just because of a notice of "deauthorization" in the OGL v1.1 strikes me as a claim with very little to back it up, especially when attributed to something as non-specific as "legal shenanigans."

This then seems to imply that the license text itself is something that's separate from the OGL, and the OGL's validity stems from the original copyrighted license text that belongs to Wizards.

This is where you lose me. The text of the OGL is separate from the OGL? To be honest, a lot of what's being said in that reddit thread strikes me as FUDD more than insightful analysis...but I suppose we'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out.

 

[Alzrius]

3) Yes, some of this language seems strange when you first read it, but there is precedent for WOTC's attorneys being cheeky in their language.

This much is true. A lot of people overlook this little tidbit in the Open Game License v1.0a:

1. Definitions: (a)"Contributors" means the copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content; (b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted;