How long do we wait for WoTC to speak?

[S'mon]

WoTC speaks An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)

Going over it now.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

To me it reads as if it (OGL 1.1) HAS to have been drafted primarily by in-house Hasbro lawyers with no external reputation to lose. Both the weird informal tone/fake mateyness, and that they must have been told "Find us SOME way to say the OGL 1.0's no longer valid".

My gut says in-house, but I have zero proof.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

WoTC speaks An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)

Going over it now.

FULL CLIMBDOWN.

At least for now.

We'll see how far they climb back up when the final one comes out, but they rule out royalties.

What it notably DOES NOT rule out is the deauthorization. Looks like they still want to do that. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

 

[S'mon]

WoTC speaks An Update on the Open Game License (OGL)

Going over it now.

We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down. Aww. They love us!

Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected. This means they are doubling down on the claim that they can rescind OGL 1.0 for future releases, despite the plain wording of OGL 1.0.

 

[S'mon]

FULL CLIMBDOWN.

At least for now.

We'll see how far they climb back up when the final one comes out, but they rule out royalties.

What it notably DOES NOT rule out is the deauthorization. Looks like they still want to do that. (Correct me if I'm wrong)

Yes, from what they say & don't say, they are still planning to declare OGL 1.0 invalid for future releases, despite the plain wording of OGL 1.0.

IMO it's not a climb down, it's a tactical adjustment. They want us to think 'we won' so we don't realise they still intend to destroy Open Gaming by de-authorising the OGL 1.0.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yes, from what they say & don't say, they are still planning to declare OGL 1.0 invalid for future releases, despite the plain wording of OGL 1.0.

Literally none of it makes any sense or difference unless they can revoke OGL 1.0a.

 

[S'mon]

From the perspective of say Paizo, from what WoTC says now, Paizo's existing material can stay up, but they won't be allowed to publish anything new. That goes the same for say Basic Fantasy, or any other 3PP who uses the 3e SRD. If they do press ahead, this will still need to be fought in court.

It looks like with this announcement WoTC are hoping to pick off some weaker animals from the herd. But fundamentally:
1. They spent 22 years assuring everyone OGL 1.0 was irrevocable.
2. They now say they are revoking OGL 1.0.

So the strategic situation has not changed.

 

[S'mon]

Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

Ofc it's not the content that counts, it's the ability to sub-licence that content using the affixed OGL 1.0, so that if I want to make an OGL work using what was originally 3e SRD material I can go to The Hypertext d20 SRD (v3.5, 5e & Pathfinder d20 System Reference Document) :: d20srd.org or d20PFSRD and use what's there. That's Open Gaming.

 

[S'mon]

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language

A draft that went out to 3PPs with an attached contract to sign & return.

 

[CapnZapp]

Paizo already publishes games that compete directly with WotC. I don't see how they are more of a commercial thread to WotC by ceasing to be licensed under the OGL, and instead putting their legal eggs into the non-copyright-infringement basket.

Now
"Paizo already publishes games that compete directly with WotC."

and earlier
"WotC already competes with exciting games."

You are doing your damnedest to minimize this entire thing, aren't you?

Good luck with that.