Search results

This interpretation is not supported by statements published by WoTC at the time. The OGL was intended as a public licence created by WoTC to facilitate the sharing of Open Game Content. They published several statements to that effect and former officers of the company have confirmed this...

This seems analogous to the situation many non-DnD publishers are in. Let's say I wish to publish a sourcebook for the Cepheus Engine. This rule system is based on the Traveller SRD released by Mongoose Publishing under the OGL v1.0a. I am not using any intellectual property of WoTC with the...

The teems of the OGL v1.0a do not merely apply to publishers. The license is clear about what is considered a derivative work and what "distribution" of this work entails. It does not require that money changes hands:

I also get the feeling they are being opaque to create FUD. I think this is not just a legal document but also a business document created to spread mistrust.

This seems to conflate material never released under the OGL (e.g. certain monsters and spells) and material from older versions of the SRD. It lumps them together as Unlicensed Content. But it requires you to agree not to use this material without a separate agreement. There seems to be an...

The assertion that the OGL v1.0a is no longer an authorised licence is made several times. But it is unclear whether this is dependent on the "you agree to the terms of this agreement" in the preamble. I suspect it does, but they are trying to give the impression it doesn't. Their claim seems...

I can see them going to Drivethrurpg and saying that if they carry any products released under the OGL v.1.0 after the specified date, they may be at risk of litigation.

This section seems to rely upon the statement in the section on de-authorisation of the OGL v.1.0, which does include the incantation "the licensee agrees". My guess is that they are hoping nobody notices this.

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...

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.

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?

I think this is the critical point. We need to spread the word about the dangers of accepting the terms of v1.1. We also need to watch carefully for sneaky attempts to bind people to the new OGL via clickwrap agreements on DnD Beyond and similar outlets. I'm sure some people will accept the new...

I basically agree with you here, but I'm coming at it from the angle of somebody who has contributed OGC to an RPG not derived from any WoTC SRD. The collateral damage to these companies is substantial. But I suppose it will be easier to ensure upstream contributors do not sign up to v1.1 since...

This does make it sound like the primary purpose of the new licence is to fracture the OGL community. Future publishers under 1.0a might need to perform due diligence to ensure no upstream OGC sources have been tainted by v1.1. Could downstream publishers have a case against upstream...

Given that the termination clause in the OGL v1.0a specifies circumstances under which the rights granted by the licence can be revoked, it is clearly not irrevocable. The question might be whether these are the only conditions under which the licence may be revoked.

Keep in mind that many games unrelated to WoTC IP adopted the OGL due to representations made by WotC about its universal applicability.

It seems to me that the new version of the OGL is utterly toxic and viral in ways designed to destroy the industry. Nobody should agree to the terms. Any publisher who does may taint their existing OGC. The updated license is designed to sow division and mistrust. The community should quarantine...

Does it matter that the termination clause in v1.0a specifies that all sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License? Does this mean that OGC contributed prior to signing up to v1.1 remains usable?

Now significant parts of the licensing document have been revealed, would any lawyers in this thread revise or clarify their previous opinions? In light of the new information, do you think v.1.1 of the OGL successfully terminates the rights granted under v1.0a? Or should we regard this as an...

It is looking like the update mechanism is key to claims WotC can render v1.0a an "unauthorised" version of the license. It is unclear whether they can unilaterally do this, but it seems the aim is to create fear and confusion.