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

[Ondath]

Do we have the publishers actually saying this explicitly? I haven’t heard that. I have heard rumors of it but nothing where Kobold Press for example says publically they have concerns which would not violate the NDA as long as they didn’t release details of the new OGL.

Griffon's Saddlebag (a small account that makes homebrew magic items for 5E) posted this instagram video where he says that he is currently taking a break to discuss how to approach OGL v1.1 with his lawyers, and that the new direction isn't good. He also posted several tweets where he mentions the need to "keep OGL v1.0 intact" (implying it will not be left intact with v1.1).

I also remember reading that WotC apparently gave content creators until January 13 to decide whether they want to adopt OGL v1.1 or not and that they couldn't discuss the details due to an NDA, but I can't find where I read that. Also, @darjr (who courageously watched the whole video at the start of the thread!) relayed the claim in the video that apparently 3PPs were anticipating the "revocation" of OGL v1.0a and having meetings to discuss what to do.

 

[jerryrice4949]

I wonder what happens if no 3pp come over to the new OGL. No royalties And perhaps a shrinking fan base.

 

[pemerton]

Again, just relaying the opinion of the lawyer on the reddit thread:

"de-authorisation" seems to be related to Section 9's "You can use any authorised version of the license" clause from what I understand. Since that's the only way WotC can do something that would be equivalent to revoking OGL v1.0a, they seem to be going that way and declaring the alternative OGL versions to be de-authorised so that they can't be used instead of OGL v1.1. I don't know if they have the right to do that, but I'm guessing that would have to be decided in court.

I've also read your post upthread:

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:

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.

So the argument is not about who enjoys what licences in respect of the current version of the SRD, but about the ability to reproduce the text of the OGL itself without infringing WotC's copyright?

That seems to raise issues around implied licences (to publish a form of notice that a licensee is contractually bound to publish) and also maybe fair use. If Evil Hat currently uses WotC's copyrighted OGL text, what is their basis for doing so? Do they have a separate agreement with WotC in respect of that? Or are they relying on some implied authorisation?

 

[Maxperson]

Look ... I mean ... this-

"You waive any right to sue over Our decision on these issues. We're aware that, if We somehow stretch Our decision of what is or is not objectionable under these clauses too far, We will receive community pushback and bad PR, and We're more than open to being convinced that We made a wrong decision. But nobody gets to use the threat of a lawsuit as part of an attempt to convince Us."

Without going into issues of waiver (especially w/r/t licenses) and why I think this is immediately suspect, I have a hard time imagining anyone with half a brain or any level of competence putting that into writing.

Some surprising things make it into writing.

Several years ago I got sent a book on my insurance coverage for my cell phone. One day I got bored enough to think, "Hmm. Perhaps reading the book on insurance coverage will liven up my day."

It started of simple enough. Covered for theft. Covered for accidental breakage. Not covered if the FBI seizes it in a criminal investigation. Covered for destruction in a fire. That sort of stuff. Then it got interesting. It turns out that I was not covered if my phone was destroyed in a nuclear explosion.............................UNLESS!..................the nuclear explosion caused a fire and the fire destroyed the phone, then I was covered.

The number of people whose cell phones can be destroyed directly or indirectly, while still being in good enough shape to actually try to collect on the cell phone being destroyed by a nuclear explosion is probably in the single digits.

 

[jerryrice4949]

When is the new/updated OGL supposed to be made public?

 

[Glade Riven]

Honestly, if this does somehow tank the OGL for Pathfinder, Starfinder, and Level-Up, I'm going to make my OWN system. With Hookers. And Blackjack. Maybe not hookers and blackjack.

 

[pemerton]

So, not a lawyer, but if the OGL works now, what’s to stop someone from taking the current OGL content and releasing it under a different license? Like Creative Commons?

By "current OGL content" I think you mean OGC as per the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

In which case, what stops someone from doing what you say - in respect of OGC that someone else owns the copyright for - is the terms of the OGL, which grants "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use" that OGC.

In respect of their own work in which they enjoy the copyright, I think that there is nothing stopping them doing that.

 

[Ondath]

I've also read your post upthread:
So the argument is not about who enjoys what licences in respect of the current version of the SRD, but about the ability to reproduce the text of the OGL itself without infringing WotC's copyright?

That seems to raise issues around implied licences (to publish a form of notice that a licensee is contractually bound to publish) and also maybe fair use. If Evil Hat currently uses WotC's copyrighted OGL text, what is their basis for doing so? Do they have a separate agreement with WotC in respect of that? Or are they relying on some implied authorisation?

I'm honestly not sure. From what I understand, anybody who uses the OGL (even if they're not using D&D's SRDs) needs to replicate the WotC copyright bits. Evil Hat does it, Paizo does it and EN World does it with Level Up too (Level Up's OGL page even includes Paizo's copyright notice, which I guess means Level Up borrows some mechanics from Pathfinder). But I honestly can't tell the reason why they have to do it. The depth of the legal discussion is above my capabilities. My last brush with law was in undergrad where I took three courses on French constitutional law, French contract law and Roman Law, and I don't think any of these would apply here!

 

[Alzrius]

When is the new/updated OGL supposed to be made public?

We don't know.

I saw a secondhand comment somewhere (here maybe? I've been reviewing a lot of the coverage on this around the Internet) that WotC was asking the people who signed the NDA to decide if they were going to sign on with the OGL v1.1 or not by January 13th, so if that's the case then I doubt we'll see it before then.

 

[pemerton]

I admit I am not a lawyer, but - content built off of D20 SRD, D20 Modern SRD, or 5e SRD is likely fine, even future content, as long as you do not publish anything under the new license/SRD. Should you publish anything, no matter how minor, under the new, updated license, your use of the old license is revoked.

This seems plausible enough in the abstract - ie that a condition of taking up rights in a revised SRD under a new licence is waiving whatever rights one might have enjoyed under an old licence.