OGL 2.0 FAQ Roll for Crit and others have leaked copies. Live now.

[Incenjucar]

The statement contains obvious lies about intention and still suggests that they're planning to smother the larger creative community. Critical failure.

 

[Blue]

How very kind of them to give us six months to keep selling existing OGL products before we will be banned from doing it. Can't wait to see this go to court..

View attachment 272438

Yup, still trying to claim a right and deauthorize 1.0a. G'dangit!!

It makes their entire "update" today seem so mealy mouthed. They deflect and discuss other parts without ever really addressing the bugbear in the room -- because they don't seem to be willing to actually walk it back.

 

[S'mon]

The statement contains obvious lies about intention and still suggests that they're planning to smother the larger creative community. Critical failure.

No, I think they rolled a 4 on the update statement. It's fooling a few people.

 

[Art Waring]

the "grace period" is carefully worded to only permit 1.0a material that would be approved by the new 2.0, that's neither a grace period nor an approval to continue with the 1.0a.

"we are including a six-moth grace period that gives creators the same benefits for those projects as a license under the OGL 1.0a if their product meets certain criteria (it's the type of work that could be licensed under 2.0 and it would have met the requirements to be licensed under 1.0a had we not deauthorized it)."

 

[FrogReaver]

Yup, still trying to claim a right and deauthorize 1.0a. G'dangit!!

It makes their entire "update" today seem so mealy mouthed. They deflect and discuss other parts without ever really addressing the bugbear in the room -- because they don't seem to be willing to actually walk it back.

Yep. Only further erodes trust. Trust is essential to using the OGL because there’s always a risk assessment involved. Wotc has changed everyone’s calculus now.

 

[kenada]

The OSR community on reddit was worried that a recent PBS article was a hit piece. One of them reached out to the academic quoted in the article. While he won’t say he was misquoted, his research doesn’t appear to be represented correctly in the article.

And here is WotC’s response with protecting D&D from bigoted content as the first of their reasons for the change. Were they right? Can we expect WotC to double down on using that as a shield from criticism as more changes are made? SMH

 

[Blue]

The OSR community on reddit was worried that a recent PBS article was a hit piece. One of them reached out to the academic quoted in the article. While he won’t say he was misquoted, his research doesn’t appear to be represented correctly in the article.

And here is WotC’s response with protecting D&D from bigoted content as the first of their reasons for the change. Were they right? Can we expect WotC to double down on using that as a shield from criticism as more changes are made? SMH

It's a variation on the old-as-time "think of the children".

It's the opposite of an Open license, it's a walled garden.

And that's easy to do - publish under a different license, or none at all.

This is just a power grab spun with pearl clutching.

 

[Enrahim2]

I haven't read it all yet, did they say anything about using OGC in 2.0 material? My suspicion has been that the reason they call it ogl is to let people still derive from that material, while not needing to follow the 1.0a terms (including atribution)

 

[NaturalZero]

"We, at WotC, have formulated a new OGL to prevent content creators from making hateful material. Because we reserve the right to be the only one to create any kind of bad feelings in the community."

 

[Knightfall]

How very kind of them to give us six months to keep selling existing OGL products before we will be banned from doing it. Can't wait to see this go to court..

View attachment 272438

If this continues to be Hasbro/Wotc's stance then...