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

[Vaalingrade]

You know how they'll enforce it though, they'll ignore stuff that you or I would consider "blatantly racist", but then crack down hard on something LGBTQ+ because it was too "sexualized" or whatever.

God, you're right.

Meanwhile the Anniversary Edition of Orcs of Thar, now with a Random Slur for the First Nations table would run wild and free.

 

[Azzy]

If WotC persists in this as their new "OGL", I hope it bites them in the ass squarely and painfully.

 

[kenada]

Linda Codega on a "new draft of the OGL 1.1, which was provided to io9 by a non-WotC developer, "

Has a comment from Chris Pramas (of Mutants and Masterminds), and a decline to comment from Paizo "stating that the rules update was a complicated and ongoing situation".

Dungeons & Dragons’ New License Tightens Its Grip on Competition

An exclusive look at Wizards of the Coast's new open gaming license shows efforts to curtail competitors and and tighten control on creators of all sizes.

gizmodo.com

Those are app-store-levels of royalties. They really do think they can create a walled garden.

Since this is being managed through D&D Beyond, I requested my account be deleted. I do not trust WotC not to pull something sneaky.

 

[S'mon]

Sure, WotC can try and say that it's been de-authorized and supplanted by v1.1… but can they actually stop anyone who wants to publish under v1.0a from pretending that v1.1 simply doesn't exit?

It seems that their intention was to suddenly drop OGL 1.1 with a 1 week deadline and they planned to scare third party publishers into signing up in a fearful rush. Once you're signed up to OGL 1.1, I think they have you.

It seems to me that what is described as OGL 1.1 is so terrible (25% royalty on all income over 750K?!) and WoTC's claims are so egregious, that it makes far more sense to fight than to comply, even for US-based companies.

 

[Sacrosanct]

You know who that royalty hurts? Not just publishers, but all of those freelancers. Lose 25% of your gross sales?* When margins are already thin? Can't afford to hire freelancers any longer. But hey! Here's this thing called MidJourney and ChatAI....

Ugh..

*I know it's over $750K now, but doesn't mean it stays that way...

 

[BrokenTwin]

Wasn't the Book of Erotic Fantasy a large source of kerfuffle back in the 3.5 days? Though I do remember WotC managing to get that product stopped in distribution for some reason.

Yeah. Which is funny, because I found the Book of Exalted Deeds (with its Good-aligned poisons) to be a much more morally objectionable book.

 

[Alzrius]

Wasn't the Book of Erotic Fantasy a large source of kerfuffle back in the 3.5 days? Though I do remember WotC managing to get that product stopped in distribution for some reason.

It resulted in a modification of the d20 STL (i.e. the separate license that let you use that red-and-white d20 logo on the cover of your book), but all that did was make the publishers of the BoEF change the cover (which they were already prepared to do). It still came out in commercial venues without any delay that I recall.

 

[Haplo781]

And the version of Edge I got preinstalled with Windows 11 points to how effective that lawsuit was.

That's a moving goalpost.

Whether or not the suit was effective is independent of the grounds for bringing it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

God, you're right.

Meanwhile the Anniversary Edition of Orcs of Thar, now with a Random Slur for the First Nations table would run wild and free.

That's the unfortunate price of free expression, right? I mean, WoTC certainly has the right to protect their IP, but when you have one person making the decision as to what's objectionable and what's not, and can ban what they like...that never has ended well. You (general you) might agree with their changes now, but what happens when they ban something you like?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay- last post on this and we move on to the actual topic. First thing you need to understand is that it's an appellate opinion, with a three judge panel. Two judges were in the majority (affirming, well, mostly, the lower court) and one judge dissented.

Now, the majority opinion made the following points. I will provide pinpoint cites (page numbers from the reporter):
1. Recitation of the standard of law. 1163-66. This is all standard stuff.

2. Denial of Summary Judgment. 1166-67. This is the most important part, as the "Thicke Parties" (ahem) primarily based their appeal on this. But here's the thing; after a full trial on the merits, you don't get to appeal the denial of summary judgment.

3. Everything else. 1167-1178. It's basically just a recitation of "you're screwed because of the standard on appeal after a jury trial." Nothing interesting here, except the part where they overturn the vicarious liability finding.

What you need to read, and understand, is the majority section VIII ("You Can't Get There from Here"), 1178-82 and contrast that with the Dissent. It shows that the majority is dealing with this as a procedural issue- that the failure here was a litigation failure, a failure to correctly preserve issues (such as by making a rule 50(a) motion) so that the court could rule on the merits.

What you're missing is that this opinion isn't about what the people on youtube are saying it is; instead, it's a procedural fight with one judge wanting to decide the case despite the rules while the majority is following the appellate procedure.

Here's the part where they make it explicit-
Lastly, the dissent prophesies that our decision will shake the foundations of copyright law, imperil the music industry, and stifle creativity. It even suggests that the Gayes' victory will come back to haunt them, as the Gayes' musical compositions may now be found to infringe any number of famous songs preceding them. Respectfully, these conjectures are unfounded hyperbole. Our decision does not grant license to copyright a musical style or "groove." Nor does it upset the balance Congress struck between the freedom of artistic expression, on the one hand, and copyright protection of the fruits of that expression, on the other hand. Rather, our decision hinges on settled procedural principles and the limited nature of our appellate review, dictated by the particular posture of this case and controlling copyright law. Far from heralding the end of musical creativity as we know it, our decision, even construed broadly, reads more accurately as a cautionary tale for future trial counsel wishing to maximize their odds of success.

Williams v. Gaye isn't some apocalyptic tale of IP law. It is a cautionary tale of what can happen when attorneys ... well, don't maximize their odds of success. Now, in saying that, I will again reiterate that I don't agree with the underlying principle that even allowed the lawsuit to get that far, but people continue to misunderstand and misrepresent the case.

Thanks for the explanation and pointing to the relevant section. I had to read it quickly the first time and didn’t realize it was a three judge panel. I will drop this too after this post. The only thing I will say is that still doesn’t fill me with ease and the dissenting opinions in cases can still prove more prophetic than the majority (there is at least one major Supreme Court case I feel the dissent predicted the consequences accurately while the majority asserted their decision would not lead to that outcome)