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.

​

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Yes, it is fair. Maybe you were not around back when the OGL first came out. One of the intentions, as stated by Dancey (the VP at the time) was to keep 3e alive if owners changed it or took it off the market. The other was to create new games that kept people in the orbit of 3e. When people asked about republishing the SRD, they were told yes.

Haw! No, I was definitely around when the OGL first came out. You're mistaking me asking some questions for me stating my opinion. Easy enough to do. I had yet to make up my mind on the subject (hence the questions), but I'm coming around.

I don't think being able to cancel the license any time, stop you from selling your creations, and allowing them to sell your creations when you cannot is ever a good deal.

Yeah, that sounds terrible.

The folks abandoning the OGL and Monte Cook games looking to revise their license and one of the artchitects of 5e putting all his 5e stuff on sale to be pulled from the market by FRIDAY. To Russ accelerating the PDF schedule to yesterday for his book not due till March.

Did you not see any of this?

No, I had not. I'm seeing some of it now. Which reminds me! I gotta go get myself the Level Up Dungeon Delver's Guide...

People say that sometimes, but I don't know 4E well enough to know if it is an accurate assessment.

PF2 definitely has some 4e*isms*, but clearly not the parts that the Paizo designers objected to.

 

[sigfried]

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

For context, there is a movement in the legal world in the US to try and make contract language easier for laymen to understand. Exactly how far that gets taken depends on the lawyer and their view.

Ideally, contracts should be both easy to understand and specific so that judges and juries can adjudicate them fairly and clearly.

I'd say this one goes a little too far in the common language direction. I was writing a couple of contracts for myself last year and did a lot of reading on this subject from articles written by lawyers. By and large, I support the idea that contracts should be as easy for a layman to read as possible, so long as it doesn't result in imprecise meaning.

I agree that "Legal trouble" is too vague, but it is easy for a common reader to understand if you are sued or prosecuted or threatened with suit or prosecution.

There are no hard rules about how you can or can't write a contract, just what is considered good or poor practice.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Fair point but I find some of their responses a little reactionary. If it was me I am not making any decisions until the dust settles and things are final.

That's generally my philosophy. Though I think that there's some fear from 3PP that they won't be allowed to sell their product once the hammer comes down. I think that's unlikely, but I understand why it might seem like a good time to cash out.

 

[sigfried]

This is going to be very bad news for PCGen.

Maybe. This license only covers printed or static electronic documents, according to the license. Whether PCGen is a static electronic document or not... kind of up in the air.

 

[Charlaquin]

I am 98% sure Paizo would just release PF2 without the OGL. It doesn't need it.

Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.

 

[Beefermatic]

For me, it’s more than just my relationships with 3rd party publishers as a result of years at ENWorld and at conventions; it’s the fact that I am a fan of open licenses, and the spurs to innovation and creativity that they bring. I’ve seen it first hand, played the results of these labors, in real life I use the product of open licenses every day. This attempt to kill an open license that’s been benefiting the community for twenty+ years, WotC included, and pervert its original intent into a one-way siphon frankly PISSES ME OFF as a customer.

I couldn't agree more. This hurts not just ttrpgs as a whole but stifles creativity and hurts WotC as well. It's greedy, stupid, and puts a bad taste in the collective mouths of dnd gamers everywhere.

Now, people won't think of WotC as someone on their side but instead as a corporate overlord threatening to squash their community for the almighty dollar, what do you know.

It's just sad. Sad and really really pathetic. Hopefully they reneg on their idiotic and moneygrubbing stance.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was talking about this whole situation with colleagues this morning. Some of them not really RPG fans so I had to explain some details. It helped me structure my thoughts.

If Wizard of the Coast had come out and said "We've got a new OGL, if you want to make content for our upcoming edition revamp, you have to use this new OGL and here are come terrible terms with 25% royalty and other restrictive clauses" I don't think I would have minded. I'd think it's greedy, I probably would have just moved to another game and thought they were idiots. But I don't think they would have been wrong to do it. They want to funnel users to their digital services, they want to seize control of the industry that built around their products. I don't agree, but I understand.

Exactly. That would basically have been the same thing as the GSL. Which was certainly met with its share of critique, but at the end of the day folks who didn’t like it were able to stick with the OGL (and indeed they did). This new license would likewise have maybe been on the greedy side, but it wouldn’t be that big of a deal if the OGL (1.0) was still available for folks who preferred it. It’s the revocation of the OGL 1.0 that’s the real problem here.

 

[Cadence]

I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.

I wonder how much Villains and Vigilantes (or some other system with vaguely similar stats - or spells or whatever - that has been around for decades) would go for if someone wanted to bolster their IP stable.

 

[Mistwell]

For context, there is a movement in the legal world in the US to try and make contract language easier for laymen to understand. Exactly how far that gets taken depends on the lawyer and their view.

Ideally, contracts should be both easy to understand and specific so that judges and juries can adjudicate them fairly and clearly.

I'd say this one goes a little too far in the common language direction. I was writing a couple of contracts for myself last year and did a lot of reading on this subject from articles written by lawyers. By and large, I support the idea that contracts should be as easy for a layman to read as possible, so long as it doesn't result in imprecise meaning.

I agree that "Legal trouble" is too vague, but it is easy for a common reader to understand if you are sued or prosecuted or threatened with suit or prosecution.

There are no hard rules about how you can or can't write a contract, just what is considered good or poor practice.

This is not the actual license.

I think a lot of people are confused by this.

We're seeing a sort of commentary help document WOTC sent along with links to the actual license text.

This, from a legal perspective, is a bad idea for WOTC. No idea what lawyer approved doing this but they're taking massive risk by doing that.

Regardless, this isn't the text of the license. The links which went to the text of the actual license were removed, because in theory that leak could be traced back to the source. So they only includes this weird commentary help document which is talking about the license without showing the license real text.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Are you sure about that? I could definitely see WotC arguing that, for example, the ability scores are a copyrighted presentation of a game mechanic.

I think they could fairly "easily" release PF3 and file off all D&D serial numbers, though. (The quotes are because it would cost them quite a bit of time and money to do it, but I think they could remain successful while doing it).