Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Cadence]

Yep. There's even ambiguity there. When I got to WotC I only see see 5e content as SRD content.

joe b.

The leaked 1.1 has:

"i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition.

ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. U"

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The propaganda is under a "COMMENTS:" subhead.

thank you

 

[Prime_Evil]

Took a look at the thing during the lunch break. I have a friend who's a lawyer, that's the extent of my legal knowlege. But even my ignorant eye can see some real OMG's in that document. Like this one from 2

"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project."​

Holy c*ap ('Hooley dooley' for you Ausies. )

Here's a question..This does not place any limit on your ability to continue to earn income from content that does not constitute "SRD-based D&D content" after January 13, 2023. So if I am publishing material for (say) the Cepheus Engine under OGL v1.0a, does this fit the definition?

 

[Umbran]

2. De-Authorization of OGL 1.0(a). Pursuant to Section VIII (A) of OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial and Section X (A) of OGL 1.1 Commercial, the licensee agrees that OGL 1.0(a) is no longer authorized, and thus the licensee can no longer use OGL 1.0(a).

So, the license doesn't de-authorize for everyone, but does so for anyone who agrees to v1.1?

And, by extension, if you don't agree to v1.1, then v1.0a is still valid for you?

Ergo - this is an all or nothing deal. If they present a carrot that makes you agree to v1.1, all your work, past and future, must be on v1.1?

That would be a relief for those who have published non-D&D games under the OGL. They have no reason to pick up the new license, and so no issues.

 

[Cadence]

S

So, the license doesn't de-authorize for everyone, but does so for anyone who agrees to v1.1?

And, by extension, if you don't agree to v1.1, then v1.0a is still valid for you?

Ergo - this is an all or nothing deal. If they present a carrot that makes you agree to v1.1, all your work, past and future, must be on v1.1?

That would be a relief for those who have published non-D&D games under the OGL. They have no reason to pick up the new license, and so no issues.

Unless they really, really wanted to use Aardlings!

 

[Prime_Evil]

The propaganda is under a "COMMENTS:" subhead.

The material under the "COMMENTS" subhead makes statements seemingly unsupported by the license itself. It's purpose is not merely explanatory - they advance claims unsupported by the contract that might not survive contact with the courts.

 

[Greg Benage]

So, the license doesn't de-authorize for everyone, but does so for anyone who agrees to v1.1?

To be clear, there is none of @bmcdaniel's "the licensee agrees" language in the document. It states:

A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement.

ETA: Legally, "the licensee agrees" may be implied or imputed to what it actually says -- that seems to be the crux of the issue.

 

[Prime_Evil]

So, the license doesn't de-authorize for everyone, but does so for anyone who agrees to v1.1?

And, by extension, if you don't agree to v1.1, then v1.0a is still valid for you?

Ergo - this is an all or nothing deal. If they present a carrot that makes you agree to v1.1, all your work, past and future, must be on v1.1?

That would be a relief for those who have published non-D&D games under the OGL. They have no reason to pick up the new license, and so no issues.

There is a significant difference between what is stated here in the text of the licence and what is stated in the comments section of the licence. It looks like the OGL v1.1 operates on an opt-in basis. If you agree to the terms of the new licence, you agree to give up the rights granted by v1.0a of the licence. But WotC go out of their way to give the impression that their "termination" of the old licence is binding on all licensees under v1.0a, regardless of whether they agree to the new licence or not. I suspect it's pure FUD designed to intimidate people into agreement with the terms of the new licence. They are likely aware they have no power to unilaterally terminate the older version of the OGL. Or am I missing something here?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So, the license doesn't de-authorize for everyone, but does so for anyone who agrees to v1.1?

And, by extension, if you don't agree to v1.1, then v1.0a is still valid for you?

Ergo - this is an all or nothing deal. If they present a carrot that makes you agree to v1.1, all your work, past and future, must be on v1.1?

That would be a relief for those who have published non-D&D games under the OGL. They have no reason to pick up the new license, and so no issues.

To be clear, what's he's saying isn't actually in the actual document we've seen. His language is a little hard for me to parse, but he seems to be saying how it should be worded, maybe?

 

[Greg Benage]

I don't think there's any contradiction between the legal language and the comments. They both say OGL 1.0(a) is no longer an authorized agreement. The legal question is whether that only becomes true for someone who agrees to 1.1. But it's exceptionally clear what Wizards' position on that question is.