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: