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.

​

 

[Alzrius]

Battlezoo, the YouTube channel which shared the initial leak of the new Open Game License, has shared the PDF of the OGL v1.1.

Morrus, the link you've posted goes to the Youtube video. The link to the OGL v1.1 is as follows:

http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

 

[Stalker0]

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.

 

[Nikosandros]

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.

This is the document that WotC sent to 3Ps (except those that got a "custom" version") with attached contract. It is rumored that Wizards might revise it after the negative reaction.

 

[JThursby]

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

This is from a version that was attached to a contract sent to an unknown vendor demanding compliance and a signature. That is the claim at least. A lot of the language is flippant and unprofessional, but apparently that is not unheard of from WotC.

 

[Princessmaker]

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.

Page 3 reads:

Who can I contact if I don’t understand something or need help? If you have any questions about what you read in the
OGL: Non-Commercial or OGL: Commercial, please reach out to us at [TBD] before using or signing either part of the
license.

Also many comments in between which makes it clear it's something like a draft with comments for non-legalese people understand it a bit better.

 

[Art Waring]

Now to be clear. Is the the actual OGL 1.1, confirmed and from on high, or is this an unofficial (possibly draft) version of the document?

As the entire internet seems to have an opinion on this, it would be nice to actually start debating a real document, rather than one that could literally be changing as we speak.

See Griffon's Saddlebag's response.

Its not a draft, it had an attached contract to be signed by the 13th.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

This is so bad. Crass hyper-capitalism.

 

[kenada]

I don’t think the commentary necessarily indicates it’s a draft. It appears to be an intended part that has no legal weight, and the license actually says as much. It also only refers to the 5.1 SRD but does not mention the 3e or 3.5e SRDs. I am interested in hearing Paizo’s response to see how that affects them. I’d guess it may mean the end of 5e AP conversions, but Pathfinder could be okay.

 

[Wulfhelm]

I'm not an expert, especially not in US law, but there are many parts that sound really unprofessional to me:

XI. INDEMNITY. If You get in legal trouble, or get Us in legal trouble, here’s what will
happen:
A. If We are on the receiving end of any legal claims, fees, expenses, or penalties related to Your Licensed Works, You are responsible for paying all Our costs, including attorneys’ fees, costs of court, and any judgments or settlements.
B. If a claim is raised against You in connection with a Licensed Work, and You aren’t defending such a claim to Our satisfaction, We have the right, but not the obligation, to take over the defense of that claim against You. If We do so, You will reimburse Us for Our costs and expenses related to that defense.

"Legal trouble"? "Here's what will happen"? "Receiving end"? Is that really considered proper legal language?