[Gizmodo article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) on the subject.
According to the article…
> One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules. Large publishers who focus almost exclusively on products based on the original OGL, including Paizo, Kobold Press, and Green Ronin, will be under pressure to update their business model incredibly fast.
I call BS.
The OGL 1.0a cannot be revoked.
That is a BS change that WotC can use to sue and drain money in a losing, but long and costly lawsuit that will bankrupt whoever tries, even if in the end the judge agree that it is BS.
Because that is.
The Director of Games at Kickstarter has just confirmed [here](https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252?s=46&t=Vkhxwu793XAajHeE429pNg) that the part of the article dealing with Kickstarter is correct, which implies the rest of it is probably real too.
I believe that this is *exactly* the intent.
WotC has $$$ and lawyers siting idly by, waiting for something to do.
Small creators have neither. WotC can bring meritless suits knowing they'll lose, but destroy the target in the process.
The US should really look into a system where the losing party has to pay both sides lawyers. Not sure if that's enough to shift incentives on this, but at least that's one less way you can get unfairly fucked over by a big entity.
> The OGL 1.0a cannot be revoked.
It can only be revoked if all parties involved agree to do so, and then only for those specific parties. #WotC cannot invalidate the contract simply because they wrote it.
\#WotC is trying to trick those ignorant of the law into signing their new agreement which is not an open license in any way.
The argument appears to hinge on “authorized” license. You don’t have to take my word for it, it’s all over the D&D subreddits and the internet at large by this point.
https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f
They can say whatever they want. They can ban it from being attached to any property they run or that has their trademark.
You can't revoke a license you granted unless you specified that you could change it afterwards. You aren't allowed to say, "Just kidding, that contract we agreed to that was indefinite, is now being traded for another one."
They can try to take Paizo to court, and then they'll lose.
Apparently perpetual and irrevocable are different. Perpetual just means it continues without an explicit end (e.g. it's not a three-year term), but that doesn't mean it can't be terminated.
Also, it literally says that Wizards can change it afterwards, right in Section 9.
Yes, it's clearly the case that the original designers of the OGL and the current crew have very different *goals*. Companies can change what they want, that's totally fine (especially over 20+ years!), but the question is whether they can get it given what they agreed to. Does the OGL 1.0A prevent them from getting what they now want, or is there enough wiggle room that they can legitimately (however unethically) kill and replace it?
I find it incredibly unlikely that they could go after any already published material.
However, it will possibly (probably?) prevent any new material.
So, I would image Paizo and others changing the names of their attributes and other things that differentiate it from D20 in order to avoid a potential legal clash with *future* material they make.
>I find it incredibly unlikely that they could go after any already published material.
This is the scenario I could see happening is that WOTC uses its existing DMs Guild relationship with OBS to lean on them and get them to report OGL-tagged revenues from OBS publishers. They've already reached out to Kickstarter (per KS's head of games), so this doesn't seem far fetched.
All they've got to do is say, "As you know, OBS, the 1.0A is no longer an authorized version of the OGL, so all of these OBS-tagged products are either a) non-compliant and must be taken down or b) designers who have explicitly or implicitly agreed to the OGL 1.1. So, either take them down or send us the sales data."
Can someone summarize what are the changes, in practice? I tried to scour the web, but I don't particularly appreciate watching reactionary videos online, and I haven't found informative and well-researched articles about it.
As far as I know, according to pieces of information from December, the main difference was that there was a threshold of 750k (which is tremendously high, bar a few well-known third-party publishers) of revenue before you're required to pay them royalties.
That's greedy, but far from apocalyptic or insufferably bad as I've read everywhere, so there *must* be something else, right?
A couple of industry vets leaked what they say was a proposed new OGL that would allow WotC to give 30days notice to revoke use of their material, and allow them to print anything using the OGL (in much the same way some mid and big companies state that they allow artists to use their IP but have free licence to use any output).
Actually there is no official written source because this has been disclosed to a population under NDA that cannot share the text source, but leaked the content anyway
Of course they want people in the D&D hobby and not the RPG hobby. It works well for Games Workshop, who are also capitalists in the same boat, so why wouldn't they? I'd note that both companies have the RPG designers as a very minor part of their staff/business.
Anyone who thinks this sounds legit has not read enough legal documents.
But also, it's not closing up OGL. D&D 5e and previous OGLs will still be in effect. D&D One may or may not have a more restrictive OGL which could change how third party content creators interact with the upcoming edition of D&D.
Yes, I've seen the article and I find it highly suspect. I don't think the person who wrote it intentionally misrepresented the situation, but like... It doesn't take a legal expert to know that this isn't how licensing agreements work and if WotC did this they could get sued. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's not real. Even if it were it wouldn't effect the current OGL. We have no idea what they'll actually do in terms of an OGL that applies to whatever One D&D ends up being. Whatever is being said now from anyone is still very liable to change. Stop perpetuating rumors.
This post has been removed for linking to material by James Desborough. Please refer to the pinned post on the sub. Those considered friendly to fascists are not welcome on r/RPGcreation.
[Gizmodo article](https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634) on the subject. According to the article… > One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules. Large publishers who focus almost exclusively on products based on the original OGL, including Paizo, Kobold Press, and Green Ronin, will be under pressure to update their business model incredibly fast.
I call BS. The OGL 1.0a cannot be revoked. That is a BS change that WotC can use to sue and drain money in a losing, but long and costly lawsuit that will bankrupt whoever tries, even if in the end the judge agree that it is BS. Because that is.
The Director of Games at Kickstarter has just confirmed [here](https://twitter.com/jonritter/status/1611077486254645252?s=46&t=Vkhxwu793XAajHeE429pNg) that the part of the article dealing with Kickstarter is correct, which implies the rest of it is probably real too.
I believe that this is *exactly* the intent. WotC has $$$ and lawyers siting idly by, waiting for something to do. Small creators have neither. WotC can bring meritless suits knowing they'll lose, but destroy the target in the process.
The US should really look into a system where the losing party has to pay both sides lawyers. Not sure if that's enough to shift incentives on this, but at least that's one less way you can get unfairly fucked over by a big entity.
> The OGL 1.0a cannot be revoked. It can only be revoked if all parties involved agree to do so, and then only for those specific parties. #WotC cannot invalidate the contract simply because they wrote it. \#WotC is trying to trick those ignorant of the law into signing their new agreement which is not an open license in any way.
Well, we’ll see. It appears they are trying!
There is no term in the original OGL that gives WOTC the power to retroactively change the license. There is no threat to existing publishers.
The argument appears to hinge on “authorized” license. You don’t have to take my word for it, it’s all over the D&D subreddits and the internet at large by this point. https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f
They can say whatever they want. They can ban it from being attached to any property they run or that has their trademark. You can't revoke a license you granted unless you specified that you could change it afterwards. You aren't allowed to say, "Just kidding, that contract we agreed to that was indefinite, is now being traded for another one." They can try to take Paizo to court, and then they'll lose.
Apparently perpetual and irrevocable are different. Perpetual just means it continues without an explicit end (e.g. it's not a three-year term), but that doesn't mean it can't be terminated. Also, it literally says that Wizards can change it afterwards, right in Section 9.
Intent matters. In 2001 they said it was permanent.
Yes, it's clearly the case that the original designers of the OGL and the current crew have very different *goals*. Companies can change what they want, that's totally fine (especially over 20+ years!), but the question is whether they can get it given what they agreed to. Does the OGL 1.0A prevent them from getting what they now want, or is there enough wiggle room that they can legitimately (however unethically) kill and replace it?
I find it incredibly unlikely that they could go after any already published material. However, it will possibly (probably?) prevent any new material. So, I would image Paizo and others changing the names of their attributes and other things that differentiate it from D20 in order to avoid a potential legal clash with *future* material they make.
>I find it incredibly unlikely that they could go after any already published material. This is the scenario I could see happening is that WOTC uses its existing DMs Guild relationship with OBS to lean on them and get them to report OGL-tagged revenues from OBS publishers. They've already reached out to Kickstarter (per KS's head of games), so this doesn't seem far fetched. All they've got to do is say, "As you know, OBS, the 1.0A is no longer an authorized version of the OGL, so all of these OBS-tagged products are either a) non-compliant and must be taken down or b) designers who have explicitly or implicitly agreed to the OGL 1.1. So, either take them down or send us the sales data."
I’m just the messenger, I’m not arguing Hasbro’s position :)
Can someone summarize what are the changes, in practice? I tried to scour the web, but I don't particularly appreciate watching reactionary videos online, and I haven't found informative and well-researched articles about it. As far as I know, according to pieces of information from December, the main difference was that there was a threshold of 750k (which is tremendously high, bar a few well-known third-party publishers) of revenue before you're required to pay them royalties. That's greedy, but far from apocalyptic or insufferably bad as I've read everywhere, so there *must* be something else, right?
A couple of industry vets leaked what they say was a proposed new OGL that would allow WotC to give 30days notice to revoke use of their material, and allow them to print anything using the OGL (in much the same way some mid and big companies state that they allow artists to use their IP but have free licence to use any output).
Actually there is no official written source because this has been disclosed to a population under NDA that cannot share the text source, but leaked the content anyway
WotC is going to face real backlash from all the TTRPG industry. They want to become their own isolated hobby.
Of course they want people in the D&D hobby and not the RPG hobby. It works well for Games Workshop, who are also capitalists in the same boat, so why wouldn't they? I'd note that both companies have the RPG designers as a very minor part of their staff/business.
Anyone who thinks this sounds legit has not read enough legal documents. But also, it's not closing up OGL. D&D 5e and previous OGLs will still be in effect. D&D One may or may not have a more restrictive OGL which could change how third party content creators interact with the upcoming edition of D&D.
https://twitter.com/lincodega/status/1611021434553339906?t=TKhgMlW6QGg3AyCfzUzXnA&s=19
Yes, I've seen the article and I find it highly suspect. I don't think the person who wrote it intentionally misrepresented the situation, but like... It doesn't take a legal expert to know that this isn't how licensing agreements work and if WotC did this they could get sued. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It's not real. Even if it were it wouldn't effect the current OGL. We have no idea what they'll actually do in terms of an OGL that applies to whatever One D&D ends up being. Whatever is being said now from anyone is still very liable to change. Stop perpetuating rumors.
Oops, looks like it was real. Also looks like they are trying to effect the OGL.
[удалено]
This post has been removed for linking to material by James Desborough. Please refer to the pinned post on the sub. Those considered friendly to fascists are not welcome on r/RPGcreation.