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

[Glade Riven]

That all hinges on whether they can in fact "de-authorize" v1.0(a), which is a very open question at this point.

Sure, WotC can try and say that it's been de-authorized and supplanted by v1.1… but can they actually stop anyone who wants to publish under v1.0a from pretending that v1.1 simply doesn't exit?

There is a thing (at least under US law) which is implied agreement (example 1: courts assume that if you are using software, you are agreeing to the terms of service to use the software; example 2: banks changing their TOS with customers and ending the notification with "if you disagree with these changes, you have until X date to close your account). So if you publish under OGL 1.1 you automatically agree that 1.1 replaces 1.0a.

 

[S'mon]

There is a thing (at least under US law) which is implied agreement (example 1: courts assume that if you are using software, you are agreeing to the terms of service to use the software; example 2: banks changing their TOS with customers and ending the notification with "if you disagree with these changes, you have until X date to close your account). So if you publish under OGL 1.1 you automatically agree that 1.1 replaces 1.0a.

Yes, don't publish under 1.1 if you don't want to be bound by it!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Does this mean Paizo can't publish a new PF2 rulebook starting one week [from now]

That seems to be what it means, yes.

Re: future games, Paizo would need to find a different licence, or not use a licence at all.

 

[Owen K.C. Stephens]

Is no one in the WotC offices saying "I don't think this is a good idea boss"?

Well, there are people who left WotC last year.
But it kinda doesn't matter. It's a massive corporation. I am sure lots of voices are saying it's a bad idea. But if those people aren't in charge, they can't stop it.

 

[Branduil]

The issue is not just how bad attempting to destroy the OGL 1.0a would be(it's obviously extremely bad), but that they're essentially setting fire to the entire community and proving themselves completely untrustworthy in all future contractual dealings. You can't unring that bell-- if they're willing to wage war to destroy the OGL, nothing else they say or claim in the future can be trusted either. It's monumentally stupid and self-destructive, in a way that's far worse than the GSL was.

 

[Jack Daniel]

There is a thing (at least under US law) which is implied agreement (example 1: courts assume that if you are using software, you are agreeing to the terms of service to use the software; example 2: banks changing their TOS with customers and ending the notification with "if you disagree with these changes, you have until X date to close your account). So if you publish under OGL 1.1 you automatically agree that 1.1 replaces 1.0a.

Yes, don't publish under 1.1 if you don't want to be bound by it!

Obviously. But the question at hand is whether publishing under 1.0 can implicitly bind you to 1.1 (and more to the point, whether publishing under 1.0 after 1.1 has been released can do so).

 

[mamba]

Obviously. But the question at hand is whether publishing under 1.0 can implicitly bind you to 1.1 (and more to the point, whether publishing under 1.0 after 1.1 has been released can do so).

no, it cannot. Worst case (which also us where this is headed) you cannot publish anything new under 1.0

 

[dbolack]

You can thank NU-TSR for that.

I mean, the only major D20STL revocation I can recall does more than a bit to support that statement.

FauxSR didn't help.

 

[dbolack]

That all hinges on whether they can in fact "de-authorize" v1.0(a), which is a very open question at this point.

Sure, WotC can try and say that it's been de-authorized and supplanted by v1.1… but can they actually stop anyone who wants to publish under v1.0a from pretending that v1.1 simply doesn't exit?

Regardless of whether or not they can unilaterally declare it unauthorized ( including for contracts they aren't a party of?! ) they can indeed press you to agree it is unauthorized in a follow-up contract. My

 

[Alzrius]

Interesting bit regarding why the royalty fee is lower for Kickstarter than for other crowdfunding platforms:

 

[Greg Benage]

"Advocating for creators" + "doing whatever we can to keep big D&D releases on Kickstarter so we can still get our own 5%"

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Interesting bit regarding why the royalty fee is lower for Kickstarter than for other crowdfunding platforms:

Well that's another very strong confirmation here, given Ritter works for Kickstarter and has clearly seen this thing.

 

[Ondath]

That seems to be what it means, yes.

Re: future games, Paizo would need to find a different licence, or not use a licence at all.c

That is actually insane.

 

[mhd]

Hope that if that happens, some of the currently OGL-d non-D&D games switch to something better, like Fudge or OpenD6.

Oh boy, could this get Chaosium complete control over BRP again?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That is actually insane.

Right? But that's really what it appears to mean.

It's not permanent. But anything new would need to use no licence or a new licence, so there'd be quite a delay, and you'd probably want to republish everything under the new licence, if that's even possible (I think it would be?), which could be quite burdensome.

Hence this is pretty good leverage for forcing Paizo into some kind of better deal.

 

[BRayne]

You never know though, CR could (hopefully) do something positive based on the worsening perception of the 1.1 OGL, they haven't made a statement yet. More than anyone else, CR is in the best position to effect a change, because they don't need wotc, the have their own platforms and they draw people to d&d, not the other way around.

 

[Art Waring]

View attachment 271353

That's quite interesting thank you for posting it!

 

[Greg Benage]

View attachment 271353

I'm not sure I agree with the claim, but I really hope Mercer believes it.

 

[Tazawa]

How does WOTC asserting that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized version affect open game content released under 1.0a?

Does it mean that creators of that content are no longer bound by that license?

Can they ‘close’ their game content and proceed to develop game content derived from their formerly open content?

Could they open up this new content under a different open license?

 

[GMSkarka]

Given that the list of non-D&D rules systems released under OGL1.0a is pretty long (Runequest BRP, Mongoose Traveller, D6, FATE, etc.), any "de-authorizing" of that license is going throw some major wrenches into the works.