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.

​

 

[Reynard]

Since it appears this is the FAQ and not the actual license, isit possible that the actual license won't have such nasty language and WotC is using this document to lay the groundwork for arguments or as an intimidation tool because they know they can't actually alter the OGL to this degree and it still be the OGL? Are they trying to pull a fast one?

 

[Cadence]

Since it appears this is the FAQ and not the actual license, isit possible that the actual license won't have such nasty language and WotC is using this document to lay the groundwork for arguments or as an intimidation tool because they know they can't actually alter the OGL to this degree and it still be the OGL? Are they trying to pull a fast one?

It says it's the FAQ and then the license with Q&A comments inserted.

 

[Haplo781]

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?

The goal is to pressure people into accepting the new license.

Giving them time to review before signing is counterproductive to that.

 

[Reynard]

It says it's the FAQ and then the license with Q&A comments inserted.

Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.

 

[Cadence]

Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.

I think it will.

The folks who got it supposedly also got a link to the a version with just the legal part. It is my guess that those links have identifiable things that would make folks not want to share them (and maybe the documents they go to have something that makes sharing not happy too).

 

[Vincent55]

this is like the clingy girl or boyfriend who at first you loved and then you just can't stand and just want to leave and avoid the rest of your life. Sorry WotC it's you not me it's you, I think we should see other people, hay pathfinder what's up how are you doing

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Wouldn't that obfuscate the actual license? I am not in a position to read the copy that leaked right now, so that question might answer itself with a glance.

They're quite well-separated. They're intended, in theory, to elucidate rather than obscure, but they elucidate WotC's "take" on the legalese, not the actual fact of the legalese, and there's at least one place where the comments are just misleading and nothing else.

 

[mamba]

Clearly not! Ha!

‘we are working very hard on figuring this out though’… Jeez, what a license

 

[Haplo781]

They're quite well-separated. They're intended, in theory, to elucidate rather than obscure, but they elucidate WotC's "take" on the legalese, not the actual fact of the legalese, and there's at least one place where the comments are just misleading and nothing else.

Gaslight gatekeep githboss

 

[overgeeked]

"Blades II: Electric Boogaloo."

Are we absolutely 100% certain this isn't an elaborate troll? Because...wow.