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

[Steel_Wind]

Never mind Paizo jumping into create 5.5e -- it looks like Kobold is planning to do it with Project Black Flag.

That didn't take long, did it? It's 2008 all over again.

Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press

Kobold Press is committed to open gaming. We are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.

koboldpress.com

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Never mind Paizo jumping into create 5.5e -- it looks like Kobold is planning to do it with Project Black Flag.

That didn't take long, did it? It's 2008 all over again.

Raising Our Flag - Kobold Press

Kobold Press is committed to open gaming. We are moving forward with clear-eyed work on a new Core Fantasy tabletop ruleset: available, open, and subscription-free for those who love it—Code Name: Project Black Flag.

koboldpress.com

is it 5.5 or is it a new system not beholden to the d20 system the ogl or D&D at all?

 

[overgeeked]

If the explanations have no legal weight, then WoTC are apparently NOT claiming to terminate OGL 1.0 for those who don't accept OGL 1.1?(!)

No. The bit about OGL 1.0a no longer being authorized is in the actual text, not the commentary. It appears twice. Once in the non-commercial section and again in the commercial section.

 

[reelo]

No. The bit about OGL 1.0a no longer being authorized is in the actual text, not the commentary. It appears twice. Once in the non-commercial section and again in the commercial section.

Yes but is it "no longer authorized" implied TO BE USED WITH THE SRD 5.1, meaning it could still be used with SRD 3.5?

 

[Enrahim2]

No. The bit about OGL 1.0a no longer being authorized is in the actual text, not the commentary. It appears twice. Once in the non-commercial section and again in the commercial section.

However I maintain that a reference to section 9 of 1.0a, simply stating that you cannot cross publish from 1.1 to 1.0a. I have yet to see a single argument that this isn't a valid interpretation beyond something like "the entire formulation is totally nonsensical", in which case also the no longer possible to use 1.0a interpretation (beyond for Licenced Content) go out of the window.

 

[innerdude]

That may be WotC's position -- the problem is that it is not a legally accurate position. The SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a -- not maybe -- FOR SURE it was.

They can't easily get rid of that 5.1 SRD legacy anymore than they can get rid of the SRD 3.5 legacy. The difference is, they don't care anymore about 3.5 -- but they DO NOT want Paizo to be able do the same thing to them with 5e that they did to them with 3.5. That's a real concern, I'm sure.

Problem: I'm not sure how WotC can actually avoid that result. What is evident to me most of all is that WotC wants to lock down the VTT space so that it is not covered by any OGL and they have complete control over it. They want their own VTT to be exclusive with OneD&D. They don't want a digital competitor in that space.

This explains the purchase of DDB for $140+ million (that was a LOT of money - unprecedented money in RPG land). They didn't pay that to just sell PDFs that weren't PDFs. They paid that because they are going to use it to leverage their own VTT in an attempt to recoup monthly subscription money from DMs and players alike.

And they can't do that effectively without making it exclusive. And as VTTs are allowed under OGL 1.0a, they need to shed that legal capability somehow.

When you look at the text of what Battlezoo released, link above, there are certain blatant lies in that document which try to re-write history, pretending certain things were not intended to be covered by the OGL 1.0a -- interactive digital products and VTTs chief among them. That is a lie of course, we know those products were intended to be permitted; WotC's own FAQ said so until 2021.

So why say something in a document that isn't true if you don't have to? Because they feel they have to. Those lies + the money spent on DDB tells you what this is really all about.

It's about locking down the VTT space for 6e. They want to be able to earn World of Warcraft subscription money from DMs and players alike, monthly. That's the "under-monetization" that WotC is aiming to fix with $140+ million purchase. Earning WoW money is the dream of every computer and video game exec in the history of ever; that's the Golden Trophy. And they can't do that as easily if people have another, non-subscription VTT venue on which to play 6e.

The rest of this is just a shopping list of publishing druthers and OGL 1.0a after-the-fact remorse. They lived with all of that for 23 years. None of that was determinative. The VTT stuff, underscored by the pandemic and the ability to monetize it? That's different. The purchase of DDB for a HOLY CRAP large sum of money? That's different - that's new.

QFT. This. All of this.

This is the ONLY reason WotC is even attempting this shenanigan. Are they really concerned about somebody Paizo-ing 5e? Well, yeah, but the royalties and such? There's not enough 3pp that even make enough money to even care about it, and the collected royalties are a miniscule line item on the revenue report.

The want D&D Beyond to become the de facto portal for everything happening in the D&D universe. They want D&D Beyond to become the Steam of roleplaying. When you sit down to roleplay, you just naturally log in to DDB every time, because it's the smoothest path to that experience.

And any other VTT is going to have to enter a discrete, monetarily punitive licensing agreement to even get into the arena.

Who quoted earlier, when given the choice to earn more profit or consolidate power, businesses invariably choose to consolidate power?

This is that. They only want authorized D&D 5.5e content to appear on their chosen, self-owned VTT platform. That's the power of consolidation.

 

[S'mon]

(IANAL) That ambiguity is in the faq trying to explain the legalese. In order to disambiguate you would have to look at the legal text.

The 13th of january obviously refers to the date the agreement takes effect. A main line interpretation is that this faq claim is supposed to be a convoluted effect of "no longer authorized. I however find the folloing interpretation much more straight forward: The commercial agreement claim to be accepted if you use Licensed Content commercially, and once the agreement is in effect at January 13th, section II prohibits using Licensed Content without complying to 1.1.

Hence the faq give a straight forward easier to read (though maybe a bit clumsy) description of this particular legal claim. That it seemed like the general mood among the lawyers that this claim is not enforcable doesn't invalidate the faq description of the legal document.

OK so I had a look. Macris was trying to parse the text of the FAQ as if it were contract terms, when it's supposed to be explanatory,

The most relevant actual term:

1.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. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.

OK so I feel increasingly that my initial instinct was right. The new FAQ seems to make pre-5.1 SRD material Unlicensed, and WoTC is focused on getting people to agree they won't use it.

Conversely, they SAY here - in an actual term - that they are talking about Product Identity. PI was pretty restricted in the OGL 1.0, and obviously did NOT cover the contents of the 3e/3.5e/5e SRDs! It does say Unlicensed Content 'includes' PI, with the implication that it goes beyond PI, though. So they seem to be setting up a bait and switch for the unwary, who may think they're only agreeing not to use PI, when really they're agreeing to not use anything outside the 5.1 SRD - including the older SRDs released under the OGL 1.0.

My head hurts now.

 

[jgbrowning]

Hrm...

 

[Enrahim2]

You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us.

But remember that OGL 1.0a is a separate agreement with "Us".

 

[S'mon]

shrug It's just a written version of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. There is always the background of "no shenanigans" in contract law- it's just hard to enforce.

We don't have that implied covenant of good faith in English law, for most contracts. One reason everyone loves to come to London in their choice of jurisdiction clause.