D&D Beyond Twitter Account says OGL will be addressed soon

[Enrahim2]

IMO, the best case is WotC saying, "We phrased our intent poorly, and to demonstrate that, we're releasing a 1.0b OGL license that is the 10.a license that includes the word 'irrevocable'" If they did that, I believe much of the damage would be assuaged. Sadly, I think that is extremely, unlikely. Extremely, extremely, extremely, unlikely.

joe b.

(IANAL) I would actually find it quite likely that they would love to do so. The more I read the actual full document and reading what wizards officially said beforecte release, the more convinced I am that wizards intentions was to exploit rather than revoke 1.0a. (There is a hint of confirmation bias on my side though.) If this is true, releasing a more obviously reliable 1.0b is clearly something that would be in their interest, both for PR and exploitative purposes

However the big problem with doing so is that I think they really dont want content created for 1.1 to be available in 1.0(x). For one thing this could indeed be seen as a protection for creators, as they would then be less likely to by mistake infringe on the oneD&D SRD, that I strongly expect they intend to be Licensed Content, but not Open Gaming Content (hence the new legal language).

In the current situation the legal trick of getting the licensee to agree to not consider 1.0a content "authorized" only prevents such a lisence to copy, modify or distribute content from 1.1 (or later) using the section 9 grant 1.1 "inherits" by virtue of being a wizards published document declaring itself "an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a)". However if the same trick were applied to both 1.0a and the hypotetical 1.0b, cross use between those two licensed would also be inhibited. While it would be possible in 1.0b that explicitely allowed use of things published under 1.0b in works published under 1.0a, it is not clear how given the immutability of 1.0a how one could legaly consruct a situation where content published under that lisence would be available for both 1.0b and 1.1 creators without requiering all 1.1 OGC to also be available for 1.0b.

Hence we are in the tricky situation that both sides basically want the same thing, but one side is also wanting something in addition that the other side doesnt care that much about, but is legaly incompatible with making the common wish more obviously legaly binding.

Wizards preference would hence likely be to create the understanding that the wish indeed is a common wish, that they think this wish is already adequatly ensured by the current legalese, and that this convinces everyone that a legal update contradicting their other wish is not needed. That way everyone get what they want.

However if the community rejects wizards assurances, wizards will be forced to make a very difficult choice indeed. Either leave behind their entire strategy revolving around 1.1, or be forced to give up on the community, throwing everyone else under the bus.

This is why I watch with dread the reaction sorounding these leaks. The leaks were highly cerry picked in a way I think make it almost inpossible to not misunderstand wizards intentions. This might make the community unable to trust WotC enough to accept the everyone wins scenario. And this might force WotC to make a very hard decission that they really didn't want to make.

How they decide to communicate now is going to be completely essential. If they misspeak they might lose both the opportunity to get what they uniquely wanted, and make everyone suffer needlessly. They need to step very carefully to avoid an anyone loses scenario.

And if they surmices the community is lost anyway, the only way they can see anyone win anything at all, is if they try to capitalise as much as possible on at least getting the 1.1 out.

 

[delericho]

However the big problem with doing so is that I think they really dont want content created for 1.1 to be available in 1.0(x).

Surely that's easy, though - instead of calling 1.1 the OGL, call it GSLv2 (which, in effect, is what it is). Then release anything they want covered by that license under that license.

 

[humble minion]

(IANAL) I would actually find it quite likely that they would love to do so. The more I read the actual full document and reading what wizards officially said beforecte release, the more convinced I am that wizards intentions was to exploit rather than revoke 1.0a. (There is a hint of confirmation bias on my side though.) If this is true, releasing a more obviously reliable 1.0b is clearly something that would be in their interest, both for PR and exploitative purposes

However the big problem with doing so is that I think they really dont want content created for 1.1 to be available in 1.0(x). For one thing this could indeed be seen as a protection for creators, as they would then be less likely to by mistake infringe on the oneD&D SRD, that I strongly expect they intend to be Licensed Content, but not Open Gaming Content (hence the new legal language).

In the current situation the legal trick of getting the licensee to agree to not consider 1.0a content "authorized" only prevents such a lisence to copy, modify or distribute content from 1.1 (or later) using the section 9 grant 1.1 "inherits" by virtue of being a wizards published document declaring itself "an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a)". However if the same trick were applied to both 1.0a and the hypotetical 1.0b, cross use between those two licensed would also be inhibited. While it would be possible in 1.0b that explicitely allowed use of things published under 1.0b in works published under 1.0a, it is not clear how given the immutability of 1.0a how one could legaly consruct a situation where content published under that lisence would be available for both 1.0b and 1.1 creators without requiering all 1.1 OGC to also be available for 1.0b.

Hence we are in the tricky situation that both sides basically want the same thing, but one side is also wanting something in addition that the other side doesnt care that much about, but is legaly incompatible with making the common wish more obviously legaly binding.

Wizards preference would hence likely be to create the understanding that the wish indeed is a common wish, that they think this wish is already adequatly ensured by the current legalese, and that this convinces everyone that a legal update contradicting their other wish is not needed. That way everyone get what they want.

However if the community rejects wizards assurances, wizards will be forced to make a very difficult choice indeed. Either leave behind their entire strategy revolving around 1.1, or be forced to give up on the community, throwing everyone else under the bus.

This is why I watch with dread the reaction sorounding these leaks. The leaks were highly cerry picked in a way I think make it almost inpossible to not misunderstand wizards intentions. This might make the community unable to trust WotC enough to accept the everyone wins scenario. And this might force WotC to make a very hard decission that they really didn't want to make.

How they decide to communicate now is going to be completely essential. If they misspeak they might lose both the opportunity to get what they uniquely wanted, and make everyone suffer needlessly. They need to step very carefully to avoid an anyone loses scenario.

And if they surmices the community is lost anyway, the only way they can see anyone win anything at all, is if they try to capitalise as much as possible on at least getting the 1.1 out.

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing there. What are you suggesting WotCs motivations behind the terms of 1.1 actually were? Because the revocation of 1.0a is only one part of the objections to 1.1 - the enormous and extortionate percentage of revenue WotC are demanding, the ability for WotC to use content published under 1.1 without recompense or credit and then bar its creator from publishing it, and the claim that 1.1 is updateable and revocable by WotC at will and with no consultation at any time are at least as awful.

The most charitable scenario I can possibly come up with for the terms of 1.1 is that it was never really intended to be used. Possibly WotC wanted to ensure that nobody released a Pathfinderlike set of 5e core books once OneDnD came out and created a competitor, so they dreamed up a cunning and rarther unscrupulous plan. They assembled the bigger 3pps who were most likely to do such a thing, presented them with an clearly and totally unacceptable new OGL, but then tried to convince them to sign bespoke agreements that were much more generous and less draconian, but which firmly locked them out of releasing 5e core books based on the 5e SRD. Once the likely competitors were hamstrung, WotC could have chucked 1.1 in the bin and either released OneD&D under 1.0a or else released a more sensible 1.0b. But once the terms of 1.1 leaked to the wider public, things rapidly got out of WotCs control.

This is ALL complete speculation, of course, and I believe the much more likely explanation is that WotC are just being jerks, having imported a bunch of executives from places like Microsoft and Amazon where monopolistic practises and abuse of market power are business plans A, B, and C.

 

[Enrahim2]

Surely that's easy, though - instead of calling 1.1 the OGL, call it GSLv2 (which, in effect, is what it is). Then release anything they want covered by that license under that license.

Well, it is even more important to them to be able to use all the 1.0a material under 1.1. That can only be achieved by it being an update to OGL1.0a. They cannot release other people's 1.0a OGC under a GSLv2 themselves.

 

[Enrahim2]

I'm not entirely sure what you're arguing there. What are you suggesting WotCs motivations behind the terms of 1.1 actually were? Because the revocation of 1.0a is only one part of the objections to 1.1 - (...)

Indeed, and revocation is the only complaint I argue is likely completely misunderstood. All the other issues with 1.1 still stands, and make it quite awfull. That is part of why I think wizards would have loved if they could just release a new 1.0b along with 1.1, if that had been enough to apease the loudest complainers.

Even more to the point is that revocation is not only a misunderstanding of the original intent of 1.1. Indeed I believe the oposite are true, they wanted 1.0a to thrive, so they could get as much content as possible to fill their 1.1 based virtual microtransaction stores with. Killing off 1.0a is the last thing they would want under that scheme!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even more to the point is that revocation is not only a misunderstanding of the original intent of 1.1. Indeed I believe the oposite are true, they wanted 1.0a to thrive, so they could get as much content as possible to fill their 1.1 based virtual microtransaction stores with. Killing off 1.0a is the last thing they would want under that scheme!

This literally doesn't make any sense at all. Your argument appears to be completely irrational, maybe even counter-rational.

 

[Composer99]

Wizards filling a microtransaction store with 3pp content did not require ogl 1.1.

All they would need is a separate agreement for third parties posting content on their service whereby Wizards gets a cut.

 

[mamba]

Indeed, and revocation is the only complaint I argue is likely completely misunderstood. All the other issues with 1.1 still stands, and make it quite awfull. That is part of why I think wizards would have loved if they could just release a new 1.0b along with 1.1, if that had been enough to apease the loudest complainers.

nothing is stopping them from not revoking / de-authorizing 1.0a in the first place, they chose to. So I find pretty unbelievable that they would have wanted to create an irrevocable 1.0b but were somehow dissuaded from it.

Also, still having some complainers left is still a whole lot better than what they have right now imo. Do you think the level of outrage would be identical if they pulled a GSL 2.0 instead?

Even more to the point is that revocation is not only a misunderstanding of the original intent of 1.1. Indeed I believe the oposite are true, they wanted 1.0a to thrive, so they could get as much content as possible to fill their 1.1 based virtual microtransaction stores with. Killing off 1.0a is the last thing they would want under that scheme!

Given how little of the existing 1.0a content they used, I find this highly implausible

 

[Enrahim2]

All they would need is a separate agreement for third parties posting content on their service whereby Wizards gets a cut.

That is the thing: wizards would need a separate agreement. With my interpretation of their intent with "no longer an authorized agreement" (not revoking 1.0a, just ensuring 1.0a cannot use 1.1) they have the following mechanism:
1: Make a product under 1.1 comercial containing copies of lot of third party 1.0a OGC. This is allowed according to 1.0a section 9 as 1.1 is an authorised version of OGL at this point. (Attribution not needed as 1.1 commercial has no requirement to include any copy of the lisence).
2: Add the OGC to their VTT as microtransactions. Allowed as they can use 1.1 creations for any purpose.
3: Enjoy the monopoly of being the only platform in the world with OGC alongside content from the latest update to the most popular roleplaying game.

To me that seem like a much more profitable gameplan than burning down the building you sit in..

 

[Enrahim2]

Given how little of the existing 1.0a content they used, I find this highly implausible

Previously they didn't have a way to secure a strong competitive advantage over the original creators. Hence not worthwhile to do. The acquisition of D&D beyond, along with a OGL monopolising use of ogl content alongside oneD&D content in the virtual space completely change that calculus.