As I've stewed on this, and in thinking about the campaign I currently play and the new one I'm about to start, this whole debacle and the exposure of Hasbro/WotC's intentions, have left a bad taste in my mouth. To the point that my desire to play the game with any content they've created (essentially, "D&D") has taken a big hit. I don't want to play a game that is owned by a company that would do this. I'm not a content creator, and the OGL 1.1 change wouldn't directly affect me, at least not in the near-term, but when the whole point of playing is to have fun, it's hard to do that when you know the ultimate source of it has become corrupted and tainted.
Don't get me wrong, I like 5e, and I've had a lot of fun playing it. But it's the taint that's now present, that will loom over every session, the knowledge that what you're playing is borne from (or at least currently owned by) the BBEG, that will simply make it less fun.
It's like spending money that you didn't rightly earn. Yeah, it can be fun, but there's a kernel of you that feels bad about it, and everything you buy with that money is tainted with that knowledge and becomes a persistent reminder that you don't deserve it.
Every roll of a die, every lookup of a rule, every flip through a book to find such-and-such reference, will be a reminder of the rot that's present at Hasbro/WotC. And that's just not a fun way to spend time.
There's a lot of speculation here about possible intentions, but there's some clear evidence about that if we just look at the relevant history.
Ryan Dancey, who actually spearheaded the project to create and start publishing under the OGL, has made public statements about the exact issues at play here. He's publicly stated that his opinion is that Hasbro doesn't have the right to deauthorize a version of the OGL, and that "if that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license." At the same time that he spearheaded the project to create the OGL at Wizards, Dancey also founded the Open Gaming Foundation. The definition of an "open gaming license" listed on their site is "“1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed" and “2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future."
Both statements made contemporaneously to the creation of the OGL and statements made in response to Wizards' leaked and then confirmed intentions confirm that the intention was that the OGL should not be able to be restricted in the future. That adds to the plainest reading of the license text supporting that understanding and additional statements from Wizards supporting that reading, which have already been extensively quoted in this thread. So, there's ample evidence that the clear intention was to create a license that could not be 'deauthorized' and replaced with a more restrictive license, and that Wizards actually believed that's what they had done.
Additionally, Wizards created a separate and more restrictive trademark agreement that would let other publishers use the "d20 System" trademark, the d20STL. Notably, the d20STL requires all content to be made for use in conjunction with the D&D PHB and to be marked as such on their covers, while the OGL does not. This context makes it clear that Wizards contemplated the possibility that competitors might intend to create standalone products, but they chose not to put restrictions in the OGL that would prevent competitors from doing so. Instead, they created a separate trademark agreement that would allow third party publishers to create content under a shared brand with Wizards, and they placed terms that would allow them to protect their core books, as well as update the terms of the license to be more restrictive if necessary, in that agreement. And they actually flexed their muscles under that agreement pretty early on, in a way that shows both that they were prepared to defend their brand and that they were cognizant of the fact that the d20STL (and not the OGL) was the appropriate tool to do so.
In 2003, just a few years after the OGL was launched, Valar Project, a company founded by a former Wizards employee, tried to publish a book of very graphic erotic fantasy content under the d20 System Trademark and using OGL content. Wizards altered its d20 trademark agreement to include "quality standards," blocking the use of the d20 logo on that product. However, they didn't attempt to change the terms of the OGL—and the book was still published, without the trademark but using OGL content. That makes it very clear that the d20STL, which includes terms that prevent standalone system competition under that brand, is severable and distinct from the OGL, and that Wizards has long recognized and allowed that distinction.
So, to briefly recap:
Statements from Wizards and key staff who created the OGL clearly indicate that the intention and actual effect of the OGL's terms as drafted was to create an open license that could not be restricted in the future.
The terms and history of the d20STL suggest that Wizards clearly anticipated that competitors might try to create standalone products, and chose not to prohibit that under the OGL.
Early conflicts around content suggest that Wizards recognized that third parties are entitled to create content Wizards finds objectionable under the OGL, and that Wizards recognized that the OGL wasn't an appropriate tool to attempt to prevent that.
If WotC/Hasbro won't back down from this appalling new direction with the OGL (that goes against WotC's explicit past promises), I'm straight back to pen and paper (and genuinely sorry that I renewed my subscriptions in autumn).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
I’ve been thinking about this for a couple days, and I hadn’t planned on replying to this thread again as it prevents others from expressing their outrage and gives WoTC the excuse that there’s only a few people who are mad.
However, I think Hasbro is making a really big mistake from a fiduciary point of view - their 2004 FAQ which stated the older versions of the OGL could continue to be used very well could provide the legal basis for a fraud case (which is wholly different than just terms of licensing).
Specifically, by their stating publicly that the current license could continue to be used, and then reversing course, they very well may have committed fraud. This gives grounds to the third-party publishers to file lawsuits against future earnings, which could be very significant. And that is to say nothing of the fact that it might even open them up to criminal penalties.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would love to hear legal expertise on this point. If I am right, this very well could destroy Hasbro.
If WotC/Hasbro won't back down from this appalling new direction with the OGL (that goes against WotC's explicit past promises), I'm straight back to pen and paper (and genuinely sorry that I renewed my subscriptions in autumn).
I already cancelled my DnD-Beyond subscription for that reason.
TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.
It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing) You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.
It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.
You should totally leave here and go do that!!! I bet you can come up with something great!
TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.
It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.
You should totally leave here and go do that!!! I bet you can come up with something great!
I don't have a ton of time to actually do the making of content, but would anyone like me to start a discord server to start this project?
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Countershere(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
Pathfinder was an intended response to something like the radical changes of 4e. (Whether 4e was good, bad, or otherwise is beside the point. What matters is if enough fans want a different D&D experience than WotC was offering, the OGL was absolutely intended to facilitate that.)
The OGL was published when D&D 3E launched in 2000. It wasn't written for the purpose of enabling another company to create a 3.5E look-alike so D&D fans had an alternative to D&D 4E.
That doesn't matter. They created the license. They stated repeatedly that it was irrevokable. Now they're trying to walk it back and destroy the livelihoods of thousands of people just because they don't like a little competition. Paizo's not the villain of the piece here. WotC/Hasbro is.
I know this comment was made more than 24 hours ago, but I felt that there were several points in it that needed to be addressed.
I find it kinda frustrating that I keep having to repeat myself, but the leaks about the Open Game License 1.1 and the comments about D&D being "under-monetized" are only tangentially related. Corporate officials using corporate language really isn't that shocking, and this comment wasn't even made in context related to the Open Game License.
Yes, but the only companies/people that will be affected by the royalties are those making more than $750,000 annually. Even then, the royalties will only be on the revenue over that number, and under 20 organizations will be directly impacted by this. And yes, there are news terms to be accepted for the next Open Game License, but that was to be expected and what is most likely is that the terms are pretty small and unimportant, seeing as the article didn't seem to make much of them. We do know that the Open Game License is being modified, but most of the worries about what those modifications will be are just unconfirmed speculation at this point.
Just because it is already in Wizards' TOS doesn't mean it will be in the next version of the Open Game License. Have you considered the fact that if someone is trying to make a false leak of a legal document, it makes sense that they will probably look at lines from other legal documents and insert the same language into the "leak". I am not saying that the Gizmodo article is wrong, just that this line doesn't really make what they have to say look any more trustworthy.
People keep citing this tweet as evidence of changes to the Open Game License, but... We already knew it was changing. Nothing we didn't know was discussed in this tweet, since we already knew there would be some percentage based royalties and a few other minor terms, this tweet presents nothing new. I find it annoying that people are using as evidence to support the "leak" when it really isn't evidence at all.
I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.
So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.
And finally, I am allowed to defend Wizards of the Coast. They may not be my friend, but they produce the wonderful game that we all love and enjoy. If they do something bad, then I will likely be among the fans to protest about it. However, if I feel that they are getting unfairly blamed and people are getting overly upset with them, then it is perfectly viable and valid for me to defend them.
I know this post has ended up being a lot longer than I intended it, so I just wanted to wrap it up by sending a message that I think everyone needs to hear: We are all D&D or TTRPG players, and while we may have disagreements and debates, let's also remember to focus on our similarities as well as our differences.
I know this comment was made more than 24 hours ago, but I felt that there were several points in it that needed to be addressed.I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.
So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.
You are characterizing anyone who is following this and taking the position of "yeah, this is bad because the leak says that the old OGL will be revoked" as "panicking" and "acting like the skying [sic] is falling out." as being unreasonable and reactionary no matter if they have taken the same information or maybe even more and come to a different conclusion than you. You may be trying to come across as reasonable, but you are, by no means, being charitable and that's pretty bad in my books. A bit of shame on you for being like that.
So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.
And yes, there are sources citing that multiple sweetheart contracts were sent with copies of the 9000 word OGL 1.1 under NDA to large third party producers. The OGL1.1 as presented in the leak is real and WotC/Hasbro is going full metal Nuclear Lawfare on OGL 1.0a. The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak. They will throw their weight around to insure OGL 1.0a projects cannot access funding through KickStarter and DriveThruRPG and they are prepared to litigate.
Multiple third party producers are bonding together and consulting attorneys as we surmise what may or may not be. Expect crowdsource funding for legal costs to hit as soon as OGL 1.1 is released.
This is real. It is happening, and when it hits it will hit hard.
You read it from me first. You will see this is 100% accurate.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak.
That... doesn't make any sense. The normal response to leaks is to move release forward, not back. I'm sure there's a reason Wizards hasn't officially released OGL 1.1 yet, but I very much doubt that reason is the leak (not impossible the reaction to the leak is relevant, but the original leak, not so much).
If you’re making commercial content, relatively little is going to change for most creators. For most of you who are selling custom content, here are the new things you’ll need to do:
Accept the license terms and let us know what you’re offering for sale
What are the terms?
My guess is that they'll be pretty minuscule, but a clearer explanation by Wizards still would be a bit nice. However, they did say that the base parts of the license are staying, so I wouldn't get too worried about this just yet.
That would have been my assumption too... but, the leaked OGL 1.1 looks anything but miniscule. As a loyal D&D fan of three and a half decades, I am extremely disappointed. Without a massive retraction, I am afraid I cannot in good conscience support a brand that would do this.
I think WotC's scared. Despite the compatibility claims that seem pretty evident in the One D&D claim, someone, maybe a newly hired exec from the software industry or part of the braintrust they may have brought on board with them for the biz side of things was aware of what happened to D&D in the shift from 3.5 and 4.0 and is trying to devise a way to control the property of D&D in such a way that if 6e or whatever produces a similar "let's stick with 5e ftw" consensus among the player base, they won't see a Pathfinder scooping up their hard core players at the end of the core product release cycle. And again, the folks devising this aren't really "D&D people" but "product moving people" so if it seems there's a disregard for community, etc., it's because these decisions are coming from the side of the house that doesn't even engage community.
If that was the goal... yikes. Because from what I've seen, it's likely to have exactly the opposite effect. I agree that this feels very much like a decision coming from people who are out of touch with the community.
WotC, I understand wanting to protect and futureproof your IP, but remember the immortal words of 38 Special. "Just hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly, you're gonna lose control."
I find it kinda frustrating that I keep having to repeat myself, but the leaks about the Open Game License 1.1 and the comments about D&D being "under-monetized" are only tangentially related. Corporate officials using corporate language really isn't that shocking, and this comment wasn't even made in context related to the Open Game License.
Yes, but the only companies/people that will be affected by the royalties are those making more than $750,000 annually. Even then, the royalties will only be on the revenue over that number, and under 20 organizations will be directly impacted by this. And yes, there are news terms to be accepted for the next Open Game License, but that was to be expected and what is most likely is that the terms are pretty small and unimportant, seeing as the article didn't seem to make much of them. We do know that the Open Game License is being modified, but most of the worries about what those modifications will be are just unconfirmed speculation at this point.
You keep repeating yourself largely because you aren't listening to anyones concerns, just saying everyone is being hyperbolistic because you don't think discussion of leaks should happen on anyones terms but WotCs.
Nobody is saying the under monetised meeting contained a long meeting about the OGL, just that a meeting about revamping monetisation aspects of D&D followed by monetising 3rd parties is indicative of a change of corporate mindset. Similarly "We're just going to print more sets" as a MTG statement doesn't mean "We are going to intentionally increase misprints!" but that also happened, but they are two linked mindsets that worsen the overall landscape.
Every time people quote the 750,000 figure to defend WotC they always seem to leave out that WotC want to collect financial data and will in all likelyhood change that figure as time goes on.
I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.
[...]
I've added some long posts here, but let me do a really short one.
The central issue of concern here to me, and to many folks following this issue with interest, is not any unconfirmed detail of the leaked terms of OGL 1.1. It is that Wizards intends to attempt to make OGL 1.1 more restrictive in any way than OGL 1.0a, when the terms of OGL 1.0a were supposed to prevent that. If they can do that, the exact terms of OGL 1.1 won't matter, because they could just change again at any time. If third party developers can't rely on the OGL, they won't develop OGL content. Period.
As I've stewed on this, and in thinking about the campaign I currently play and the new one I'm about to start, this whole debacle and the exposure of Hasbro/WotC's intentions, have left a bad taste in my mouth. To the point that my desire to play the game with any content they've created (essentially, "D&D") has taken a big hit. I don't want to play a game that is owned by a company that would do this. I'm not a content creator, and the OGL 1.1 change wouldn't directly affect me, at least not in the near-term, but when the whole point of playing is to have fun, it's hard to do that when you know the ultimate source of it has become corrupted and tainted.
Don't get me wrong, I like 5e, and I've had a lot of fun playing it. But it's the taint that's now present, that will loom over every session, the knowledge that what you're playing is borne from (or at least currently owned by) the BBEG, that will simply make it less fun.
It's like spending money that you didn't rightly earn. Yeah, it can be fun, but there's a kernel of you that feels bad about it, and everything you buy with that money is tainted with that knowledge and becomes a persistent reminder that you don't deserve it.
Every roll of a die, every lookup of a rule, every flip through a book to find such-and-such reference, will be a reminder of the rot that's present at Hasbro/WotC. And that's just not a fun way to spend time.
If WotC/Hasbro won't back down from this appalling new direction with the OGL (that goes against WotC's explicit past promises), I'm straight back to pen and paper (and genuinely sorry that I renewed my subscriptions in autumn).
"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?" -Death
I’ve been thinking about this for a couple days, and I hadn’t planned on replying to this thread again as it prevents others from expressing their outrage and gives WoTC the excuse that there’s only a few people who are mad.
However, I think Hasbro is making a really big mistake from a fiduciary point of view - their 2004 FAQ which stated the older versions of the OGL could continue to be used very well could provide the legal basis for a fraud case (which is wholly different than just terms of licensing).
Specifically, by their stating publicly that the current license could continue to be used, and then reversing course, they very well may have committed fraud. This gives grounds to the third-party publishers to file lawsuits against future earnings, which could be very significant. And that is to say nothing of the fact that it might even open them up to criminal penalties.
I’m not a lawyer, but I would love to hear legal expertise on this point. If I am right, this very well could destroy Hasbro.
I already cancelled my DnD-Beyond subscription for that reason.
TBH I would like to see the community come together in a MAJOR way like never before... NOT to fight the new CGL 1.1, or WotC/Hasbro, but to create a BRAND NEW Fantasy TTRPG that plays like D&D, but uses NOTHING of their IP and requires NO acceptance of any OGL or SRD.
It is doable. Given all the major players out there - the big TTRPG developers, the major TTRPG web sites (like EN World), the sheer size and creativeness of the community, imagine if this giant community created a new truly open-source system that plays like D&D but isn't beholden to WotC, and we can ALL then play in that creative playground royalty-free in real perpetuity, with a truly irrevocable open gaming license.
"Orcs are savage raiders and pillagers with stooped postures, low foreheads, and piggish faces with prominent lower canines that resemble tusks." MM p245 (original printing)
You don't OWN your books on DDB: WotC can change them any time. What do you think will happen when OneD&D comes out?
You should totally leave here and go do that!!! I bet you can come up with something great!
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I don't have a ton of time to actually do the making of content, but would anyone like me to start a discord server to start this project?
Subclass Evaluations So Far:
Sorcerer
Warlock
My statblock. Fear me!
Hosted a battle between the Cult of Sedge and the Forum Counters here(Done now). I_Love_Tarrasques has won the fight, scoring a victory for the fiendish Moderators.
I don't disagree there.
I know this comment was made more than 24 hours ago, but I felt that there were several points in it that needed to be addressed.
I do get your point about language such as fearmongering and panicking; Many of the concerns and worries about Open Game License 1.1 are valid, and they deserve to be treated as such. However... There are some people panicking and acting like the sky is falling out. You may not be one of those people, and not everyone who fears for the OGL is like that, but there are people who are deleting their accounts, quitting the game, or cancelling their subscription. Why are they doing this? Because they are worried about unconfirmed leaks, and are acting now instead of waiting to see whether or not their are concerns are valid.
So yes, there are some people panicking and/or acting like the skying is falling out. There are also some people with important concerns, but a lot of people are overreacting to others' worries.
And finally, I am allowed to defend Wizards of the Coast. They may not be my friend, but they produce the wonderful game that we all love and enjoy. If they do something bad, then I will likely be among the fans to protest about it. However, if I feel that they are getting unfairly blamed and people are getting overly upset with them, then it is perfectly viable and valid for me to defend them.
I know this post has ended up being a lot longer than I intended it, so I just wanted to wrap it up by sending a message that I think everyone needs to hear: We are all D&D or TTRPG players, and while we may have disagreements and debates, let's also remember to focus on our similarities as well as our differences.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.You are characterizing anyone who is following this and taking the position of "yeah, this is bad because the leak says that the old OGL will be revoked" as "panicking" and "acting like the skying [sic] is falling out." as being unreasonable and reactionary no matter if they have taken the same information or maybe even more and come to a different conclusion than you. You may be trying to come across as reasonable, but you are, by no means, being charitable and that's pretty bad in my books. A bit of shame on you for being like that.
Also, take a read here: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f
Well yeah, and other people are allowed to express their opinions about WOTC and your choices too.
And yes, there are sources citing that multiple sweetheart contracts were sent with copies of the 9000 word OGL 1.1 under NDA to large third party producers. The OGL1.1 as presented in the leak is real and WotC/Hasbro is going full metal Nuclear Lawfare on OGL 1.0a. The only reason it was not released on January 4 as planned was due to the leak. They will throw their weight around to insure OGL 1.0a projects cannot access funding through KickStarter and DriveThruRPG and they are prepared to litigate.
Multiple third party producers are bonding together and consulting attorneys as we surmise what may or may not be. Expect crowdsource funding for legal costs to hit as soon as OGL 1.1 is released.
This is real. It is happening, and when it hits it will hit hard.
You read it from me first. You will see this is 100% accurate.
The age of OGL is over. The Time of the ORC has come!
The moment that WotC declares OGL 1.0a "de-authorized", "revoked" or any such nonsense is the moment I release as much content as possible under OGL 1.0a and say, "Sue me WotC". OGL1.0a cannot be revoked. If thousands of us do it, the countersuit will be a class action suit.
I know we’re friendly and all, but….
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
That... doesn't make any sense. The normal response to leaks is to move release forward, not back. I'm sure there's a reason Wizards hasn't officially released OGL 1.1 yet, but I very much doubt that reason is the leak (not impossible the reaction to the leak is relevant, but the original leak, not so much).
That would have been my assumption too... but, the leaked OGL 1.1 looks anything but miniscule. As a loyal D&D fan of three and a half decades, I am extremely disappointed. Without a massive retraction, I am afraid I cannot in good conscience support a brand that would do this.
If that was the goal... yikes. Because from what I've seen, it's likely to have exactly the opposite effect. I agree that this feels very much like a decision coming from people who are out of touch with the community.
WotC, I understand wanting to protect and futureproof your IP, but remember the immortal words of 38 Special. "Just hold on loosely, but don't let go. If you cling too tightly, you're gonna lose control."
You keep repeating yourself largely because you aren't listening to anyones concerns, just saying everyone is being hyperbolistic because you don't think discussion of leaks should happen on anyones terms but WotCs.
Nobody is saying the under monetised meeting contained a long meeting about the OGL, just that a meeting about revamping monetisation aspects of D&D followed by monetising 3rd parties is indicative of a change of corporate mindset. Similarly "We're just going to print more sets" as a MTG statement doesn't mean "We are going to intentionally increase misprints!" but that also happened, but they are two linked mindsets that worsen the overall landscape.
Every time people quote the 750,000 figure to defend WotC they always seem to leave out that WotC want to collect financial data and will in all likelyhood change that figure as time goes on.
I've added some long posts here, but let me do a really short one.
The central issue of concern here to me, and to many folks following this issue with interest, is not any unconfirmed detail of the leaked terms of OGL 1.1. It is that Wizards intends to attempt to make OGL 1.1 more restrictive in any way than OGL 1.0a, when the terms of OGL 1.0a were supposed to prevent that. If they can do that, the exact terms of OGL 1.1 won't matter, because they could just change again at any time. If third party developers can't rely on the OGL, they won't develop OGL content. Period.