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.

​

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I continue to be doubtful on the veracity of the leak. I can't imagine anyone vetting something like this going out in any official capacity:

"We’re giving You a license, not agreeing to take on potential liability when We do so. To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,” but Our lawyers say We need to include that last clause under Washington law, so in it goes."

There's also a ton of vagueness that I can't see ending up in a legal document. Case in point, the use of the word "something" in this section:

"A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is substantially similar to a Licensed Work."

 

[Haplo781]

I continue to be doubtful on the veracity of the leak. I can't imagine anyone vetting something like this going out in any official capacity:

"We’re giving You a license, not agreeing to take on potential liability when We do so. To be honest, We’re not really sure what We could do while making Dungeons & Dragons content available to You that could ever be “grossly negligent,” but Our lawyers say We need to include that last clause under Washington law, so in it goes."

There's also a ton of vagueness that I can't see ending up in a legal document. Case in point, the use of the word "something" in this section:

"A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is substantially similar to a Licensed Work."

Those are comments on the license, not the license itself

 

[Ghost2020]

Looks like a fork up. Section IX is Warranties and Disclaimers.

Which makes me wonder if this is a draft or something?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Can we blame TSR3 for this somehow?

Seriously, did that whole debacle make Hasbro sit up and think "we need to put more protections on our D&D IP, make it more like our other games/licenses?"

I'm sure this would have largely happened without LaNasa, but I'm also sure his actions led to some of the bad things in it. He forced Hasbro to protect their IP. He's the reason why we have warnings on urinal cakes that say "Do Not Eat" and why we can't have nice things.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Which makes me wonder if this is a draft or something?

Oh my god.

PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT. You don't need to speculate. This is like the 10th time I've said this.

Here's what shows that:

"The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."

It ain't a draft.

 

[Smackpixi]

Looks like they’re worried Asmodee is going to do a Level Up style fully compatible fork of 5e replete with functional VTT and so forth. Or someone similar with those kind of resources and distribution.

And, when they make a new Druid Subclass they don’t want to have to care about the 4000 other subclasses people have published.

Everything else is probably negotiable.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I have a hard time believing that that sort of language would be employed in this sort of professional document in any capacity. Wizards of the Coast is a giant corporation and including "well, our lawyers told us to put this in here" seems so monstrously out of place with that. There's no chance that a communications department didn't go over that, along with legal. Even in the comments, including language that undercuts or introduces vagueness seems very unlikely, even in the guise of a conversational tone. I will remain a skeptic until Wizards proves the reality of the matter, or a source I trust confirms it.

Those are comments on the license, not the license itself

 

[Ghost2020]

Oh my god.

PLEASE READ THE DOCUMENT. You don't need to speculate. This is like the 10th time I've said this.

Here's what shows that:

"The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section."

It ain't a draft.

My 'is this a draft' is because:

Is this missing sections? Trying to find the IX.B.2 for qualifying revenue, am i missing it?

 

[Haplo781]

I have a hard time believing that that sort of language would be employed in this sort of professional document in any capacity. Wizards of the Coast is a giant corporation and including "well, our lawyers told us to put this in here" seems so monstrously out of place with that. There's no chance that a communications department didn't go over that, along with legal. Even in the comments, including language that undercuts or introduces vagueness seems very unlikely, even in the guise of a conversational tone. I will remain a skeptic until Wizards proves the reality of the matter, or a source I trust confirms it.

The 1.0 threatens to feed you to Demogorgon if you misbehave

 

[darjr]

There are going to be a lot of “what’s going on?” (Looking at you Reddit) and “I can’t believe this?” and “some rando YouTuber” a lot a lot.

Especially as the news spreads.

Some folks are genuinely finding out much later than the rest of us.