We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!

[Maxperson]

This much is true. A lot of people overlook this little tidbit in the Open Game License v1.0a:

Maybe they had been drinking when they wrote that?

 

[Clint_L]

And what does continuously insulting the people who are taking the claims seriously get you, exactly?

Also note that one of the two people making the claims is a Paizo veteran who knows people in WotC (and who has posted again to the thread to say that they confirmed these news from several other sources). Don't you think it's odd they'd risk their reputation by making such a huge claim if they had no backing?

Is anyone here taking these claims seriously? I find that hard to believe.

Also, I have no idea what any of the credentials are from anyone making the claims. There is zero reliable reporting on this, there are rumours, people claiming to be lawyers on Reddit, etc. There is basically a bunch of people on the internet saying stuff and a text that is so obviously fake that there is not anything to debate. There is no point going any further than looking at that text and rolling your eyes.

 

[Alzrius]

Is anyone here taking these claims seriously? I find that hard to believe.

If you read back through the thread, a number of people are taking these claims with (varying levels of) seriousness.

Also, I have no idea what any of the credentials are from anyone making the claims.

I posted some links to the credentials of Mark Seifter back in post #20.

 

[pemerton]

People keep getting hung up on the common wisdom about revocability and the OGL - which this website has perpetuated - while missing the fact that WotC's not going to revoke OGL 1.0. They're going to deauthorize it. This comment earlier in the thread spells it out.

The OGL doesn't talk about "deauthorisation". Section 9 deals with updates to the licence.

My view, as @Ondath has mentioned, is that WotC could cease to offer new licences of its existing SRD on the OGL terms. But existing licensees would enjoy the authority to license OGC that has been licensed to them, as per section 4 of the OGL v 1.0a together with the definition of "Use".

As I also posted in the other thread, IP licensing law is not my field of expertise. So there may well be arguments that refute my view. But I haven't seen this notion of "deauthorisation" explained in a way that makes sense. (And the comment that you point to is mostly referring to what I posted in the other thread.)

 

[overgeeked]

Never mind.

 

[Ondath]

Is anyone here taking these claims seriously? I find that hard to believe.

I do hope you turn out to be right and that this whole situation ends up being an exaggeration. But given that third-party creators who were contacted by WotC and told to choose whether they'll adopt OGL v1.1 or not (but can't discuss details due to NDAs) are also showing extreme discomfort with what WotC is preparing, I think the OGL v1.1 that will be officially announced will be a lot closer to what the leaks say than you might think.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Maybe they had been drinking when they wrote that?

Nope. Or maybe! Drunkage makes typsos!

@Alzrius - that wasn't a joke. It was likely a typo introduced when they were using boilerplate language. Similar licenses will use the correct term (from software) portation (with an "r").

 

[Glade Riven]

The Rules Lawyer has a video up. Seems he got a copy of the leak, too.

I admit I am not a lawyer, but - content built off of D20 SRD, D20 Modern SRD, or 5e SRD is likely fine, even future content, as long as you do not publish anything under the new license/SRD. Should you publish anything, no matter how minor, under the new, updated license, your use of the old license is revoked. It's very "Gotcha" - and third party publishers will have to decide whether to move forward with the risk of a very bad contract and Wizards having a De Facto royalty free license to their trademark or cutting free from D&D completely.

Software companies have taken huge legal hits for not honoring perpetual licenses (Filmora, I believe, is a recent one).

 

[Alzrius]

Nope. Or maybe! Drunkage makes typsos!

@Alzrius - that wasn't a joke. It was likely a typo introduced when they were using boilerplate language. Similar licenses will use the correct term (from software) portation (with an "r").

I like my interpretation better.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Pretty much how I understood it. @pemerton had made this point before, while the OGL as a license, once obtained, is perpetual and worldwide, it still requires you to enter into a contact with WotC in order to obtain it. In order to enter that contract, there needs to be (1) an offer from WotC, (2) something that the contract offers and (3) a clear sign that you've accepted that contract. If WotC stops offering OGL v1.0a (which is separate from revoking the license from those who previously held it, which is what they cannot do under the perpetuity clause), then you can no longer get OGL v1.0a since (1) becomes missing.

What about OGL 1.0?