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

[Reynard]

Owen's thread doesn't indicate a new source. His info could all be from the same person that the circular squad is using.

Real, credible journalism on this leak would have indicators of sourcing such that the potential sources could be differentiated.

He told us that multiple people he knows working for WotC and 3PPs under NDA are concerned. THAT is what should concern us.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm gonna wait on confirmation before caring.

Still, I'm more concerned about the 'we get to 'legally' steal and publish anything you create' part than the 'we're going to performatively invalidate the original license that says it can't be invalidated and isn't actually needed because game mechanics can't be copyrighted' part.

 

[Alby87]

WotC Announces OGL 1.1 -- Revised Terms, Royalties, and Annual Revenue Reporting

There has been a lot of speculation recently about WotC's plans regarding the Open Gaming License and the upcoming One D&D. Today, WotC shared some information. In short, they will be producing a new Open Gaming License (note that the previous OGL 1.0a will still exist, and can still be used)...

www.enworld.org

I had concerns about the word "Authorize" on section 9 three weks ago. It was told me to not worry about that one. What a world, I'm unhappy of being right, this is not something common knowing me

What I really think is that the TTRPG market, if WotC will do this move, will never, ever trust them again, on a "7 edition" with a truly good "OGL 1.3". They will burn all the faith. More, I think that a new open gaming license will be made by a consortium by former 3PP (Paizo, Enworld...) with no economic interest on revoking it, and a new wave of games will be released under this new license. It will be the rise of Pathfinder 3rd, or Level Up 2nd, or another game that will be de "De Facto" D&D alternative, that will surely go well because of brand recognition (they are working A LOT about it, thanks to movie, serials, books, toys), but everytime in a forum, reddit or so on, someone will ask for a better game, that name will be presented.

What a wonderful birthday party Wizards is making for the 50th of D&D. Big party, with no invited... Sad one.

 

[bedir than]

He told us that multiple people he knows working for WotC and 3PPs under NDA are concerned. THAT is what should concern us.

Concerned, of course they are.

That's not evidence that the leak is true. That's evidence that change is coming, which we already know because WotC stated publicly that change is coming.

 

[Cadence]

Good search-fu there! I see myself from 2014 just below Marshall. I don't think my opinion has changed since 2014.

Some history from RSDancey apepars on page 7 with a brief follow-up by you again:

theRPGSite: Maintenance

and he gives his opinion on technology in ttrpging (back in 2014) down at:

theRPGSite: Maintenance

with musings on MMOs a few posts below that and another on the OGL a bit after that.

The following from him seems pretty relevant to today, especially the last paragraph:

"If there's a meaningfully large number of people who will jump through hoops to play an "old school" retro clone of 1e, that's critical information that Wizards wants. There's very little Wizards could do to uncover that information short of letting people just make whatever the hell they wish, and then seeing what sells and what doesn't.

Wizards should have the "retro-clone" market under a microscope, at least to the extent that they can figure out if it's real, or just a small group of really loud people. If it is real, that is something worth knowing. And if it's just a small group of really loud people, that's something worth knowing too.

If the company threw cease & desist letters around at anything it found offensive or "dangerous" to its intellectual property, it would squash the kind of innovation required to explore all the market niches, and scratch all the itches. And it wouldn't likely sell one more D&D book, or generate one more dollar of D&D license revenue. It's all downside, and no upside.

Eventually I think Wizards will want to clear the ground and fight to define its rights to copyright roleplaying game materials. The recent string of court cases in the US that are expanding the concept of copyright to "worlds" beyond "works" is all in their favor. But they're not going to fight that battle over OSRIC, for goodness' sake. They're going to fight over something worth tens of millions of dollars. The target for that fight doesn't even exist yet, but if it arises, Wizards wants to keep its powder dry. Remember that copyright, unlike trademark, does not lose enforceability if it is not defended"

-Dancey in reply #116

There is more by him later in that thread to. Feels worth a read to those interested in the history of the game who haven't read much up on it before (ranging from rumors of how well things were selling to 4e to Forge).

 

[Greg Benage]

Owen K. Stephens' post upthread adds credence to the idea that SOMETHING is happening.

Does it? How?

Owen doesn't know anything, and is entirely upfront about that. He claims that the "leak reporters" are credible, but admits they could be wrong. And then he notes, "[...] even if Mark and Stephen are right and the final language doesn't change, it may not be nearly as bad as it seems out of context."

You know what actually "adds credence" to the idea that "something is happening"? Wizards of the Coast's statement that they're making changes to the OGL.

(Fine Print: The quoted "leak," while reading nothing like actual legal language, reads a lot like an email from a nonlawyer attempting to communicate the substance of a legal document they've seen.)

 

[SteveC]

I had concerns about the word "Authorize" on section 9 three weks ago. It was told me to not worry about that one. What a world, I'm unhappy of being right, this is not something common knowing me

What I really think is that the TTRPG market, if WotC will do this move, will never, ever trust them again, on a "7 edition" with a truly good "OGL 1.3". They will burn all the faith. More, I think that a new open gaming license will be made by a consortium by former 3PP (Paizo, Enworld...) with no economic interest on revoking it, and a new wave of games will be released under this new license. It will be the rise of Pathfinder 3rd, or Level Up 2nd, or another game that will be de "De Facto" D&D alternative, that will surely go well because of brand recognition (they are working A LOT about it, thanks to movie, serials, books, toys), but everytime in a forum, reddit or so on, someone will ask for a better game, that name will be presented.

What a wonderful birthday party Wizards is making for the 50th of D&D. Big party, with no invited... Sad one.

I think this is a pretty astute comment. I have been here for a very long time, and have had to experience things like TSR's spat with Judges Guild and Role Aids which left a bad taste in peoples mouth back in the 70s and 80s! The thing was, when the OGL happened, it was thought of as crazy talk by many (and I know many of you were here). I have to laugh at what people in Hasbro and corporate WotC think about Ryan Dancy.

When 4E and the GSL happened, it brought a tremendous amount of bad will with it. I was there for that as well and there are people still salty about that to this day. When 5E happened, it literally took years to rebuild trust and the good will that was lost. And now, if what we are seeing is correct, it's likely we have broken all of that good will. So happy New Year, I guess.

 

[S'mon]

Edit: I asked the lawyer in question why they thought @Alzrius's workaround would not work, and this is what they said (in an unofficial capacity that does not act as legal advice, obviously): "I think this is likely a flawed interpretation - the Open Game License 1.0a starts with WotC and grows from there. Every use and instance relies on it being an active document, because every one of the sublicensee's rights requires the original license to be intact."

It seems to me that if that were true then many open software licences would not work. I understand what your lawyer contact is saying about sub-licencing, but the intent of the OGL 1.0 seems pretty clearly to be to permanently release the material licenced under it, and indeed WotC's 2000 FAQ appeared to say just that AIR. A US court normally looks at what the parties agreeing to the contract would reasonably understand it to mean, not what the writer of the contract later decides it really meant.

 

[Reynard]

Does it? How?

Owen doesn't know anything, and is entirely upfront about that. He claims that the "leak reporters" are credible, but admits they could be wrong. And then he notes, "[...] even if Mark and Stephen are right and the final language doesn't change, it may not be nearly as bad as it seems out of context."

You know what actually "adds credence" to the idea that "something is happening"? Wizards of the Coast's statement that they're making changes to the OGL.

(Fine Print: The quoted "leak," while reading nothing like actual legal language, reads a lot like an email from a nonlawyer attempting to communicate the substance of a legal document they've seen.)

You misunderstand: I did not intimate that his post said the leak was real, but that since a number of credible people are concerned about what this means going forward, then that is evidence something important is happening.

I am not interested in sparing with you or anyone else over the veracity of the "leak" since we can't really know anything. Lots of folks are asserting things they can't possibly have any knowledge of. But when the one person with access to folks actively involved comes in and tells us that the mood at WotC and 3PPs surrounding the state of the "OGL 1.1" is concerning, I am inclined to listen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well, without going too far down the rabbit hole (because I don't support the Blurred Line decision), the trouble is that people often don't understand what actually is going on in these various cases. It's like you get the snippet ("Ooh, McDonalds got sued because Coffee is hot!") and lack the foundation to fully appreciate what happened in the case.

Cases go to juries. Juries can make mistakes. A jury in California made the Blurred Lines decision. Now, if you want to read something interesting, read the Ninth Circuit (appellate) decision that upheld the jury decision. Both the majority and the dissent. It might not change your mind about the actual case, but it might give you insight as to why it ended up that way (from a procedural point of view).

ETA- if you really are curious, it's Williams v. Gaye, 885 F. 3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2018).

There are people with far greater musical expertise than myself (I can play instruments and understand some music theory). But this decision is widely regarded by people in music as very bad for songwriting in general. I don't the the appellate judges statement at all eases my concern. I once aspired to be a song writer, but after that decision I am glad to not have to worry about music copyright. Also with so many of these cases, the people filing the lawsuit are guilty of the very same thing they accuse the defendants of (there are countless music channels that show the chain of influence leading up to the song in questions and inevitably the plaintiffs are also taking just as much from earlier songs as they say has been taken from their song).

Rick Beato has a very short video that I think gets at the heart of the problem with the original decision:
There is also this video on a more recent music case by Adam Neely (which I think helps show how far the Blurred Lines case has led to things moving):
He also did a video on the Kate Perry case, which was ultimately overturned, but the video helps show some of the issues with recent musicologist testimony in these copyright cases:
These are all definitely worth checking out. Rick Beato and Adam Neely both have a very strong grasp of the music side of this and how it will impact music. I will say make your own decision and if the statement by the appellate judge changes your mind, fair enough. But I think the core claim presents a huge problem for music (it would in my opinion be like a case in RPGs undermining the concept that you can't copyright a game mechanic).