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.

​

 

[Stalker0]

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.

So assuming that's true, why wouldn't they have released the more general license yet I wonder.

 

[Cadence]

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?

"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."

Holy cow....

 

[darjr]

He plugged Level Up!!!!

 

[darjr]

He called it 5e's Pathfinder.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

So assuming that's true, why wouldn't they have released the more general license yet I wonder.

This is all clarified by the document itself.

I wish more of you would have at least read the first few paragraphs:

The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links. We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section. If on the other hand you would like to start with a in plain language of how the OGL works, you can start here with the FAQ section. In addition to that, we have included a set of comments in the license itself that accompany the legal language and provide explanations and examples to help make the License easier to understand and comply with. You can get to those comments by clicking the link after each section.

So the "unprofessional comments" are in fact clearly delineated comments which represent WotC's presentation of what they're saying the legalese means. (Edit: Some of their presentations contain a lot of spin, particularly when they claim the meaning of "Open Gaming Content" is "The 5.1 SRD" which to me goes beyond spin and into "an obvious lie").

And there's no confusion over whether this is a draft - this is being represented as a final document, just click through to sign the actual final one.

As to "why haven't people released that then?!", well, that's probably a lot more secure and the links were probably customized for each individual who was mailed the document. Which would make it instantly possible to trace the leaker (I think they will be found eventually but I think it's unlikely WotC will take action unless they're WotC staff).

Why do I say that? I work at a law firm and I used to manage a product we used which could do EXACTLY what I'm saying. It's a fairly common product too and I'm no I'm not going to doxx myself by naming it lol.

 

[Knightfall]

Completely draconian.

 

[Knightfall]

This is going to be very bad news for PCGen.

 

[Stalker0]

This is all clarified by the document itself.

Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.

 

[Cadence]

Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.

It feels like each individual license sent out like this in advance would have it's own links with a bunch of unique numbers attached, so that the identity of the leaker (and NDA violator) would be obvious?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Except there are no actual links in the document we have, nor has WOTC come out with any general links for people to click on and review. So I think my statement stands, there hasn't been a "general release" of this license yet.

To repeat my post:

As to "why haven't people released that then?!", well, that's probably a lot more secure and the links were probably customized for each individual who was mailed the document. Which would make it instantly possible to trace the leaker (I think they will be found eventually but I think it's unlikely WotC will take action unless they're WotC staff).

So we can't actually be as sure as you think.

Now, Griffon's Saddlebag says that his understanding is basically no-one has signed up. If so this document will almost certainly change rather than just being released.