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

[kenada]

Decent start, but doesn't really tell me who he is.

He’s a 5e creator who has posted about needing to take time off to navigate the OGL 1.1 and that it, “makes (continuing making content) extremely challenging and painful to do so,” which I believe is being cited as indirect evidence supporting the OP’s claims.

 

[FrogReaver]

He’s a 5e creator who has posted about needing to take time off to navigate the OGL 1.1 and that it, “makes (continuing making content) extremely challenging and painful to do so,” which I believe is being cited as indirect evidence supporting the OP’s claims.

Okay, is there nothing more to his story? Because if that's it then i'm not understanding why some here are placing such credibility in him on this?

Maybe I should ask what I want to know another way, Who is the most credible person claiming to have independently gotten the info about the OGL 1.1?

 

[Scribe]

Okay, is there nothing more to his story? Because if that's it then i'm not understanding why some here are placing such credibility in him on this?

Maybe I should ask what I want to know another way, Who is the most credible person claiming to have independently gotten the info about the OGL 1.1?

I poked around his site, hes got a lot of content, a million + dollar kickstarter, and I assume, a decent income rolling in.

If he's concerned, as would seem to be implied, then perhaps he knows something, and is in that bracket of 'this is not looking good for me' earnings.

 

[kenada]

Okay, is there nothing more to his story? Because if that's it then i'm not understanding why some here are placing such credibility in him on this?

That’s it as far as I’m aware.

Maybe I should ask what I want to know another way, Who is the most credible person claiming to have independently gotten the info about the OGL 1.1?

No one. Those who know are under NDA. The best we can do is make inferences based on what those who do know are saying.

 

[FrogReaver]

That’s it as far as I’m aware.


No one. Those who know are under NDA. The best we can do is make inferences based on what those who do know are saying.

No one is not a valid answer.

 

[kenada]

No one is not a valid answer.

I don’t know what to tell you. There aren’t any smoking guns. All we have is the reputation of the OP and what we can guess is why the creator of the Griffon’s Saddlebag would say he needs to take time to navigate the OGL 1.1. Either that’s enough, or it’s not. If it’s not, then no one is indeed a valid answer.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

If it's not true, WotC will outright deny it within a week.

Guess we'll see.

Depends on if it gets enough buzz.

 

[MonsterEnvy]

No one is not a valid answer.

Yes it is

 

[pemerton]

deauthorizing the use of OGL 1.0a for material released under OGL 1.1 would seem potentially doable and would be a statement made so that there is no confusion about whether certain content released under OGL 1.1 could be rereleased by others under OGL 1.0a (the question of whether OGL 1.1 would be legally considered a version of OGL 1.0a at that point might be in contention but outside that I think it would make sense).

I think it's perfectly possible for WotC - or you, or me, or anyone else - to publish a SRD and offer to license it to all comers on whatever terms we like. (Subject to general common law and statutory requirements.) And as I posted on the other thread, it seems quite likely that this is what WotC intends to do with its revised SRD.

But it would be confusing, in my view, to describe this as a "deauthorisation" of the OGL v 1.0a. What it would be, I would guess, would be (i) a non-authorisation of the new licence for OGL v 1.0a purposes (ie currently existing OGC can't be released under the new licence) and (ii) contractual terms in the new licence that make it clear that whatever form the new "OGC" takes, the new licence falls outside the scope of OGL v 1.0/1.0a section 9, and hence the new OGC can't be used under the current OGL.

The effect of (ii) seems clear enough (subject to WotC getting its drafting right, to actually do what it wants to do - although as long as the drafting is not terrible it seems a bit unlikely that anyone would actually try and test the limits in a way that WotC would care about.

The effect of (i), as I'm envisaging it, would be to mean that all existing publishers who want to reuse their stuff would have to reissue it under the new licence. Where publisher A's existing stuff is heavily intertwined with publisher B's OGC, that may be tricky. I don't know if WotC would care about the trickiness, and hence do something different from my (i), or not care. The most different thing they could do is try to set up a one-way door, so that everyone can bring everyone's existing OGC under the new licensing regime, but stuff licensed only under the new licence can't go back the other way. To my mind, that might be a bit tricky given the wording of section 9 of the current OGL, but I imagine WotC will be able to retain better drafters than me!

 

[pemerton]

And could you explain how you think "Use" as a defined term interacts with Section 4 of the OGL 1.0a to create in the licensee a right to sublicense?

I think the missing link in your argument is that "Use" includes the ability to "Distribute", a defined term that contains the word "license". So, to rewrite your sentence a bit, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC - and the ability to Use includes the ability to Distribute, and the ability to Distribute includes the ability to license - that has been license to it. That's arguably a drafting error, excluding the ability to sub-license in list of rights granted by Section 4, but including it in the definition of Distribute. That's classic legal chicanery and I'd be very interested to talk to the lawyers who drafted the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a to see if it was intentional.

I think you've answered your own question (unless I've misunderstood you).

I don't think it's a drafting error. I think it's a deliberate feature of the OGL. It's how it works in a "viral", "genie can't be put back in the bottle" fashion: every licensee in the SRD ecosystem is authorised by licensors (who, unless they are WotC issusing the SRD, are also licensees) to sub-license their OGC to future parties, provided those parties in turn agree to be bound by the terms of the OGL (which includes granting this authority in respect of their OGC).