Battlezoo Shares The OGL v1.1

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1 draft which is currently circulating. This draft is, presumably, the same document obtained by Gizmodo last week. It's not currently known if this is the final version of the license.

​

 

[CleverNickName]

Nord Games has posted a comment about the OGL 1.1 on all of their Kickstarter projects; I saw it because I backed their "Ultimate Guide to Foraging, Harvesting, & Natural Discovery" back in the day. The way it's written, I get the impression it was posted on all of their Kickstarters. Here's the message:

Greetings Adventurers...​

​

We have entered the realm of the unknown. For 23 years OGL 1.0 has enabled everyone who abides by the rules in it to publish content for D&D. It was updated after 5th Edition was published and Nord Games has been using it since 2016 to play in Wizards of the Coast's (WotC's) sandbox, publishing many books and card decks to enhance your gaming experience. ​

​

Last week a copy of OGL 1.1 was leaked. The new version of the OGL which WotC intends to force 3rd party publishers onto. It contains A LOT of really bad stuff so I'll break it down:​

​

1. The new license attempts to invalidate all other licenses. This would mean all of our books and PDFs designed for 5E would be unsellable and we will not be able to publish 5E content moving forward, unless of course we sign the new OGL 1.1 license...​

​

2. The new license puts a 25% fee on all of our revenue after we've sold more than $750,000 in a calendar year. This might not seem like a big deal, but it actually is. Nord Games currently sells a lot more than this every year and giving 25% of it to WotC would have a major impact on how many products we are able to publish and how many people we employ such as staff, contractors, artists, writers, etc. This could literally kill thousands of jobs across the industry.​

​

3. The new license states that all of our content using the OGL 1.0 and 1.1 becomes the property of WotC. Additionally, they do not have to pay us for the use of that content. They can also terminate our license at any time for any reason, even if we do not violate the terms of the new license. So for example they could take our Treacherous Traps book, re-publish it word for word as their own, AND demand that we destroy all of our physical copies in our warehouse AND demand we not sell it in PDF format ANYWHERE.​

​

There are many other issues with the OGL 1.1 but these are the main 3 to focus on for Nord Games. The OGL 1.0 was never designed to be unauthorized, only revised and updated as time went on. This has been WotC's stance in the past on their website and in various statements over the years. Even the person who wrote the original version of the OGL has come out declaring it was not meant to expire or be nullified by any subsequent licenses. ​

​

This whole thing is an obvious attempt to squash the competition AND steal all of our IP in one motion. Pathfinder and many other game systems use the OGL 1.0 as the basis for their game system. Let that sink in for a moment and you start to understand just how insane this situation is.​

​

We plan to continue honoring our part of using the OGL 1.0 and delivering to our fans high quality supplements for your 5E games. If WotC wants to sue us over it we're ready to challenge them in court, as are dozens of other publishers we have spoken with. The hope is that WotC and their parent company Hasbro (who appears to be the instigator of this entire debacle) back off and leave the OGL 1.0 out of the contract for OGL 1.1. We really don't care if they want to close things up for One D&D which is what OGL 1.1 is meant to go with. We hope it's a good system and many people will enjoy playing it, but it's allegedly backward compatible which means our 5E products would work with it anyway.​

​

What can you do? Well #OpenDnD has been trending all over social media, so that can't hurt to continue to share. You can also go to WotC's website and let them know how you feel through the contact form, or even the One D&D playtest survey...​

​

Thank you all for your continued support. We couldn't do this without you and the OGL 1.0, so we are doing what we can to keep our fans happy and keep D&D truly open.​

​

Stay tuned for more updates about our progress on The Ultimate Guide to Foraging, Harvesting & Natural Discovery as the PDFs are made available and we begin production of the physical products!​

​

-Chris​

 

[aco175]

To be honest, I'm not 100% against all of it. I would expect to pay royalties to use one's IP. One can argue over the amount and tiers and penalties of lawsuits and such, but it is still their baby at the end of the day.

 

[ersatzphil]

Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo.

Speaking as someone currently re-reading the Icewind Dale novels - his name is freaking Bruenor Battlehammer. My God.

 

[Mistwell]

I can see companies splitting into two or three companies with "partner" companies that "work with them" to support their products which, each in themselves make less than $750K in revenue but which made more than that when they were combined entities.

I once was tangent to a company, and I will out some details now because 1) they were never my client I just knew someone who worked there, and 2) they're long gone now. This company, which was in the fandom field so may have been used by people here back in the early 2000s or so, literally had HUNDREDS of "sub-companies" which were each being utilized as their own company with their own LLC and accounting books and such, all being run by the same "group" of people. Each had it's own website, their own liability protection, so that if one got in trouble it could in theory go bankrupt without impacting the others. Each reported it's own licensing sales without impact to the others. And they had in-house attorneys that worked to make sure this was all done technically legally. How they shared accounting and HR people and legal people and such without dirtying the waters (or crossing the streams, choose your analogy) I do not know, though I'd venture to guess they made yet another company for those people and just use them as paid consultants for the other "companies". I just know this was the entire concept of that "company" and it worked for years.

And now that I think about it all these years later, they did a LOT of license-intensive products. Maybe there were license agreements they worked with which had these kinds of thresholds in them, and that was the reason this "company" did that in the first place? I don't know.

 

[Greg Benage]

I can see companies splitting into two or three companies with "partner" companies that "work with them" to support their products which, each in themselves make less than $750K in revenue but which made more than that when they were combined entities.

Careful - they got a clause for that.

J. You will not attempt to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, such as by creating separate entities to try to evade payment of royalties.

 

[Mistwell]

Careful - they got a clause for that.

Ah they DID think of it.

Of course, it's easier to say that in the agreement than prove it, when you get down to the intricate details. But at least they thought of it.

Though may be able to split your company right now, before signing this new agreement. I'll have to think about the ramifications of that.

 

[Greg Benage]

Of course, it's easier to say that in the agreement than prove it, when you get down to the intricate details. But at least they thought of it.

Even if they can't prove it and collect some cash from you, they can terminate you and every other publisher they may think is related to you at any time.

 

[Haplo781]

sure, but my point still stands. there is no GENERAL release of this license, only specific documents sent to specific companies.

If the license is done, why wouldn't there be a general release so that other vendors can start figuring out how to work with the new license?

Because other vendors would be able to start figuring out how to work with the new license.

 

[Mistwell]

Even if they can't prove it and collect some cash from you, they can terminate you and every other publisher they may think is related to you at any time.

True. I wonder if the document is such that anyone can sign on to it at any time, and gain 30 days notice before it can be terminated?

I mean when it comes down to it, I want to read this actual document and not the non-legal summary document.

 

[Stalker0]

Because other vendors would be able to start figuring out how to work with the new license.

which.....is the goal. I mean the whole point of this is for WOTC to get people off of 1.0 and on to 1.1. So yes, you absolutely want other vendors to start figuring out how to work with the liscene.

So again, why haven't they released it so people can start doing that?