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


log in or register to remove this ad

EpicureanDM

Explorer
Your question presumes there must be some legally controlling source such as a law for the term sublicense such that the source determines it's meaning.

Most often in contract law it's not a law that determines the meaning of a term but either a) the contract itself or b) case law/precedent.
Yes, I know that. Congratulations on spotting my clever, Socratic traps.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
You could have done this additional Google search before you pulled the trigger on Black's.
In general, the person throwing out specific terms (that aren't presumed to be widely known) should be the one to cite them, as a general guideline in favor of avoiding confusion and abetting discourse. "You should have done research in order to understand what I meant" is far less conducive in that regard.
 


Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
I made no comment on the trustworthiness of it. In fact I think it's as likely to be trustworthy as untrustworthy.

But one must be careful with leaks. Sometimes the leaker is doing it to shine a light of warning. Sometimes the company itself is doing it to gauge reaction so they can either hold firm or soften their stance before officially releasing something.

I'm just saying to me it feels like a summary or a summary of a document's design that isn't finished. That's 3 levels of bias, including WOTC's, for it to twist. And likely before any decision with those being spoke to. So I'm not even wrinkling my brain over it.
 

EpicureanDM

Explorer
In general, the person throwing out specific terms (that aren't presumed to be widely known) should be the one to cite them, as a general guideline in favor of avoiding confusion and abetting discourse. "You should have done research in order to understand what I meant" is far less conducive in that regard.
Your reply struck me as snarky, so that's how I responded. If you didn't intend it that way, then let's chalk it up to misunderstanding tone on the Internet and move on.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Yeah, generally you have to have some sort of superficial "I agree" and usually in software licenses using the software is a "de-facto" agreement (with court support, at least under US Law). So if you create something under One D&D's OGL you are de-facto agreeing that anything you made under 1.0 or 1.0A has been replaced with 1.1. This means that if, say, Paizo published ONE adventure for One D&D under OGL 1.1 then they just handed ALL of Pathfinder and Starfinder over to Wizards with a perpetual, irrevocable license to do whatever they want. Hence, the "Gotcha." Wizards could, in turn, post a 30-day notice revoking all usage on their website and still reprint anything Paizo made consequence and repercussion free. Although that might get a little tricky with trademark law and it's still a bit of a mess but in theory it could happen.
Legally it would be easy enough to structure a company such that one branch of the company publishes under OGL 1.0 and the other OGL 1.1 without having the issue you propose (even if I fully agreed it could/would work the way you describe which I don't) - so I don't see the point in them even attempting what you suggest here.
 


Dausuul

Legend
At this point, with confirmation from multiple sources, it does seem more and more likely that it's a real leak. If the language seems sloppy and unlawyerly in places... well, it is (supposedly) an internal draft.

And assuming this is the case, I second the motion that we all quit referring to it as "OGL 1.1" and start referring to it as "GSL 2.0," because that's what it is.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top