im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
also i find it hard to believe that a document goes from 1 page to 15 pages for a .1 version this would be more like a 2.0 if it was real.
The document is under copyright of WotC, so you can't just upload it willy-nilly. That being said, some have uploaded copies of it or streamed its contents in full. Believing it to be fake, because of its length or it not being called 2.0, is grasping at straws at this point. People have forward and verified that they have received this OGL (in name only) with a deadline to sign it.
It is paramount to not to conflate statements from a non-primary source with facts, but if the evidence is this overwhelming, it is hard to justify calling the leaks fakes.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
It is available for everyone to see. In fact the website has been posted multiple times in this thread alone. But in case you missed it, the website is in post #398. Right above your last two posts.
A bit concerned!!??... anyone who makes 0-10000000$ from OGL 1.03A should give a huge *insert your bad word or finger here* to WOTC/HASBRO. They cannot revoke it. They cannot stop what has been legally allowed for 20+years. They are trying to scare or intimidate folks who aren't smart to actually agree to this shite.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
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.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
Yeah but nothing on Wizards Page - Hope that will be there soon - so I can make a decision.
A decision over a pile of ashes, and regret that you didn't act sooner, probably.
If the leaked documents were fake, it seems to me that Hasbro/WotC would have a massive interest in saying so.
Same with if they were old, out of date, or materially inaccurate.
It is unfortunate, but the most likely reason for not having commented at this point is that there's not much they can say at this point that doesn't make them look worse.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
Yeah but nothing on Wizards Page - Hope that will be there soon - so I can make a decision.
A decision over a pile of ashes, and regret that you didn't act sooner, probably.
If the leaked documents were fake, it seems to me that Hasbro/WotC would have a massive interest in saying so.
Same with if they were old, out of date, or materially inaccurate.
It is unfortunate, but the most likely reason for not having commented at this point is that there's not much they can say at this point that doesn't make them look worse.
As I said in another thread; my guess is they're hoping that the storm will pass if they clam up and refuse to acknowledge it. Hope that the fire of outrage cools off, or people get tired enough of it that when they do release a slightly walked back version, people will just go "oh fine it's not THAT bad" and let it slide. Unfortunately for Hasbro, and fortunately for the hobby as a whole; they've stepped just a bit too far for that to happen, basically every business that does anything in the vicinity of D&D; not just third party publishers, but video makers, artists, paid DMs etc; are wondering if they will have jobs in a year. Furthermore; the language and terms in the document are so egregious that well... frankly based upon the read throughs I've heard: I'm wondering if it's even legal, never mind enforceable. Nobody in their right mind would agree to sign the OGL as is; there are bits that demand you agree to just give up whole legal rights and the like.
All I can say is, if you have PDFs on your DriveThruRPG Library, I would download them ASAP and make sure you have backups of them. I remember what happened to my WotC PDFs in 2009 all too well.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
im guessing they haven't released it yet because its not finished yet. we still have over a year before the new version of the game releases. and wizards never said they were gonna release it on the 4th
Multiple creators on YouTube have a full copy. It's complete. All that needs to happen is for them to release it.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
It can be found, but we probably can't link it here. The full document PDF can be found. /r/dndnext has links to it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
All I can say is, if you have PDFs on your DriveThruRPG Library, I would download them ASAP and make sure you have backups of them. I remember what happened to my WotC PDFs in 2009 all too well.
RIP the old Firefly RPG that now only lives in bootleg form on sketchy servers thanks to Disney and their psychotic lawyers.
I'm taking read through the Commercial OGL 1.1 which was linke out on this post on the previous page, and here are a few bits I'm noticing...
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document.
COMMENTS: You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision.
This is a real corker. Used to be you incuded a disclaimer saying "I used WotC stuff, it's in here too" and that was that. Now, if I make a 150-page document, I need to specifically pull very mention of every WotC content up and reference it so that nobody reading it is in the slightest doubt that Dragonborn were invented by them, not me! I personally would go for the index, for simplicity. I might even make a generic index of every piece of WotC content, whether I used it or not, and slap it at the end of the document as a legalese block to keep their lawyers happy.
Here's an example in the words of whoever wrote this as-yet unverified document:
i. Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo. He includes miniature replica blades as a stretch goal and has a backer-tier that grants access to all stretch goals. The replica blades are not Licensed Works (because they aren’t text-printed or printable) but all revenue from that backer-tier still counts as Qualifying Revenue.
ii. Bruenor runs the same campaign and includes the same miniatures, but makes them available as add-ons for separate purchase. Because the miniatures are not Licensed Works and are being purchased separately, none of the revenue from those purchases is Qualifying Revenue.
Which implies that you can make non-static-document content, but it is not covered by the licence. They don't say "we'll come for Bruenors head", they imply that the physical parts are literally not part of the agreement (though here they are because they are a part of a kickstarter campaign). It also says that making minis for your OGL game does not make those minis licenced content. So separating what has to use the OGL and what doesn't into separate bundles of stuff could hap people with their worries over ownership; I haven't found anything saying that WotC owns your content (they specify they own the licnced content, which is what you're using, not what you're making, but not that they own your content), so iff you make a mini for a Bubberchubb, and then make a statblock for the Bubberchubb, you're going to own the IP because the mini is not icenced, and is therefore your own creation - only the statblock uses the OGL, and WotC only claims the bits you used (EG Str, Dex, Con Etc.) They don't claim the IP, only the mechanics and anthing you do use of theirs (EG Owlbears).
Proof of this unverified document implying that you retain ownership of your own stuff:
III. OWNERSHIP. You agree that We own copyright, trademark, and patent rights, if any, in the Licensed Content and the Unlicensed Content. We reserve all rights not expressly given to You through this agreement. You agree to include any copyright or other rights notices included with the Licensed Content in Your Licensed Works, and You may not impose any additional, different, or inconsistent terms or conditions with respect to the Licensed Content in any license You grant to any Licensed Works.
and the defintions:
i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition.
ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.
iii. Your Content – These are the characters, classes, settings, spells, items, new rules, and other creations that You have crafted. They are Your original contributions to the works that You want to sell. This license permits You to combine Your content with the Licensed Content and commercially distribute the resulting works.
notice that there is a difference here between the Licenced Product (being the thing you make) and the Licenced Content (being the stuff WotC is letting you use in your Licenced Product). There is nothing in this document, that I can see, that lets WotC claim ownership of your content, your original material. The legalese makes it a bit hard to get through, but what they are saying is that you agree to say "WotC owns owlbears" and, if you have a separate licence agreement, "JK Rowling owns Hogwarts", when you publish your supplement: "Owlbears Attack Hogwarts".
I jumped to conclusions, then did the research, and was proven wrong.
Proof of this unverified document implying that you retain ownership of your own stuff:
The issue wasn't that the creator would not retain their ownership, but that in addition to the creator retaining ownership, WotC also claims rights in perpetuity to use your creation any way they want without remunerating you.
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?
Proof of this unverified document implying that you retain ownership of your own stuff:
The issue wasn't that the creator would not retain their ownership, but that in addition to the creator retaining ownership, WotC also claims rights in perpetuity to use your creation any way they want without remunerating you.
I didn't see that in there. I don't claim to be infallable, so I will check again. But the document I read said that they retain rights to "Licenced Content", which is the stuff they wrote and licenced you to use (EG Owlbears), not the stuff you make under the licence. Back to the document I go!
-Edit: Yep, there's two "Ownership" sections, which both clearly state that WotC owns their stuff, not yours. They own Licenced and Unlicenced Content, which is defined earlier as the content they include in the SRD to let you make your content compatible with D&D 5e. Nowhere do they claim to perpetually own your IP. Nor could they - think of the legal battles if it's more than just something you made up:
Example: You have written 10 bestselling novels, and you decide to make some of the monsters compatible for D&D. The IP for the monsters is yours already, and now you use the OGL to make them for D&D. WotC will claim ownership of the basic rules and the spells you cite from their content, but your own stuff is still your own.
I am not what I would refer to as content creator nor am I any sort of expert in OGLs or any sort of leagal terminology. I am just your avergae DND player/ DM.
This new OGL will cripple the dnd community and this game we all love so much. If this goes forward many of the content creators I follow and support will be incedily effected, perhaps even to the point of not being able to create what they love anymore. If this new OGL goes through I am disgusted by the thought that content that I creat, items, backgrounds, feats, races, subclasses ect, can just be ued by WoTC without my knwoedlge, consent or any ackwoeldgment that it was my creative mind that came up with the ideas using the framework of DND.
I love DND and one of the reasosns I do is that I can add things to the already existing content to better play the game the way I want. I believe, like many other posters here that DND is strongest and best when content creators and average dnd players are able to create unbridled.
I am dissapointed in WoTC not only becuase this OGL 1.1 is being discussed but because they have said nothing since this article came out nearly a month ago. Surely they have seen the dissapointment, outrage, and shock of the community?
I sincely hope that WoTC is listening to its community and is looking to revise or simply scrap the OGL1.1. Or else do the honest thing and call it like it is. The OGL1.1 is a CGl.
B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.
I'm taking read through the Commercial OGL 1.1 which was linke out on this post on the previous page, and here are a few bits I'm noticing...
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document.
COMMENTS: You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision.
This is a real corker. Used to be you incuded a disclaimer saying "I used WotC stuff, it's in here too" and that was that. Now, if I make a 150-page document, I need to specifically pull very mention of every WotC content up and reference it so that nobody reading it is in the slightest doubt that Dragonborn were invented by them, not me! I personally would go for the index, for simplicity. I might even make a generic index of every piece of WotC content, whether I used it or not, and slap it at the end of the document as a legalese block to keep their lawyers happy.
Here's an example in the words of whoever wrote this as-yet unverified document:
i. Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo. He includes miniature replica blades as a stretch goal and has a backer-tier that grants access to all stretch goals. The replica blades are not Licensed Works (because they aren’t text-printed or printable) but all revenue from that backer-tier still counts as Qualifying Revenue.
ii. Bruenor runs the same campaign and includes the same miniatures, but makes them available as add-ons for separate purchase. Because the miniatures are not Licensed Works and are being purchased separately, none of the revenue from those purchases is Qualifying Revenue.
Which implies that you can make non-static-document content, but it is not covered by the licence. They don't say "we'll come for Bruenors head", they imply that the physical parts are literally not part of the agreement (though here they are because they are a part of a kickstarter campaign). It also says that making minis for your OGL game does not make those minis licenced content. So separating what has to use the OGL and what doesn't into separate bundles of stuff could hap people with their worries over ownership; I haven't found anything saying that WotC owns your content (they specify they own the licnced content, which is what you're using, not what you're making, but not that they own your content), so iff you make a mini for a Bubberchubb, and then make a statblock for the Bubberchubb, you're going to own the IP because the mini is not icenced, and is therefore your own creation - only the statblock uses the OGL, and WotC only claims the bits you used (EG Str, Dex, Con Etc.) They don't claim the IP, only the mechanics and anthing you do use of theirs (EG Owlbears).
Proof of this unverified document implying that you retain ownership of your own stuff:
III. OWNERSHIP. You agree that We own copyright, trademark, and patent rights, if any, in the Licensed Content and the Unlicensed Content. We reserve all rights not expressly given to You through this agreement. You agree to include any copyright or other rights notices included with the Licensed Content in Your Licensed Works, and You may not impose any additional, different, or inconsistent terms or conditions with respect to the Licensed Content in any license You grant to any Licensed Works.
and the defintions:
i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition.
ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.
iii. Your Content – These are the characters, classes, settings, spells, items, new rules, and other creations that You have crafted. They are Your original contributions to the works that You want to sell. This license permits You to combine Your content with the Licensed Content and commercially distribute the resulting works.
notice that there is a difference here between the Licenced Product (being the thing you make) and the Licenced Content (being the stuff WotC is letting you use in your Licenced Product). There is nothing in this document, that I can see, that lets WotC claim ownership of your content, your original material. The legalese makes it a bit hard to get through, but what they are saying is that you agree to say "WotC owns owlbears" and, if you have a separate licence agreement, "JK Rowling owns Hogwarts", when you publish your supplement: "Owlbears Attack Hogwarts".
I jumped to conclusions, then did the research, and was proven wrong.
Thank you for posting your interpretation. I would be interested in your thoughts regarding the 30 day period for them to change the rules of the revenue sharing over 750k or their ability to force 3rd party publishers to stop selling/destroy inventory at a whim. Are these provisions as onerous as they sound or are there safeguards for content producers from Hasbro corporate fiat?
B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.
Under OGL: Commercial at around page 7
Edit: Sorry, 2 places, page 7 and 14
I stand corrected! Though there is the sentiment to contemplate (not legal or anything, but...
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can’t and won’t cancel products out of fear that they’d be seen as “similar to” Licensed Works. Therefore:
Which implies that, as I had suspected, this is purely to cover them aganst people trying to claim that they thought of it first.
then why isnt this copy available to see for everyone? people claim to have it but it is magically nowhere to be found online.
also i find it hard to believe that a document goes from 1 page to 15 pages for a .1 version this would be more like a 2.0 if it was real.
The document is under copyright of WotC, so you can't just upload it willy-nilly. That being said, some have uploaded copies of it or streamed its contents in full. Believing it to be fake, because of its length or it not being called 2.0, is grasping at straws at this point. People have forward and verified that they have received this OGL (in name only) with a deadline to sign it.
It is paramount to not to conflate statements from a non-primary source with facts, but if the evidence is this overwhelming, it is hard to justify calling the leaks fakes.
I really didn't think it was this bad when I heard about it...but it really is. I'm not mad I'm just...disappointed.
It is available for everyone to see. In fact the website has been posted multiple times in this thread alone. But in case you missed it, the website is in post #398. Right above your last two posts.
A bit concerned!!??... anyone who makes 0-10000000$ from OGL 1.03A should give a huge *insert your bad word or finger here* to WOTC/HASBRO. They cannot revoke it. They cannot stop what has been legally allowed for 20+years. They are trying to scare or intimidate folks who aren't smart to actually agree to this shite.
http://ogl.battlezoo.com/
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.
Yeah but nothing on Wizards Page - Hope that will be there soon - so I can make a decision.
A decision over a pile of ashes, and regret that you didn't act sooner, probably.
If the leaked documents were fake, it seems to me that Hasbro/WotC would have a massive interest in saying so.
Same with if they were old, out of date, or materially inaccurate.
It is unfortunate, but the most likely reason for not having commented at this point is that there's not much they can say at this point that doesn't make them look worse.
As I said in another thread; my guess is they're hoping that the storm will pass if they clam up and refuse to acknowledge it. Hope that the fire of outrage cools off, or people get tired enough of it that when they do release a slightly walked back version, people will just go "oh fine it's not THAT bad" and let it slide. Unfortunately for Hasbro, and fortunately for the hobby as a whole; they've stepped just a bit too far for that to happen, basically every business that does anything in the vicinity of D&D; not just third party publishers, but video makers, artists, paid DMs etc; are wondering if they will have jobs in a year. Furthermore; the language and terms in the document are so egregious that well... frankly based upon the read throughs I've heard: I'm wondering if it's even legal, never mind enforceable. Nobody in their right mind would agree to sign the OGL as is; there are bits that demand you agree to just give up whole legal rights and the like.
All I can say is, if you have PDFs on your DriveThruRPG Library, I would download them ASAP and make sure you have backups of them. I remember what happened to my WotC PDFs in 2009 all too well.
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.
It can be found, but we probably can't link it here. The full document PDF can be found. /r/dndnext has links to it.
Leaving OGL 1.0(a) untouched and making SRD 5.1 CC-BY-4.0 is a great first step. The next is a promise to do the same for future editions. Here's a discussion thread on that.
#OpenDnD
DDB is great, but it could be better. Here are some things I think could improve DDB
RIP the old Firefly RPG that now only lives in bootleg form on sketchy servers thanks to Disney and their psychotic lawyers.
I'm taking read through the Commercial OGL 1.1 which was linke out on this post on the previous page, and here are a few bits I'm noticing...
IV. IDENTIFICATION OF LICENSED CONTENT. You must identify in Your Licensed Works which content is Licensed Content and which content is Your Content, in a way that allows a reader of Your Licensed Work to understand the distinction without checking any other document.
COMMENTS: You can identify content in any manner You want to, whether that’s using a different font for Licensed Content than for Your Content, or putting an asterisk next to Licensed Content and telling readers what those distinctions mean; citing to the SRD whenever You use Licensed Content (“Dragonborn (SRD p. 5)”); putting a separate index or list in the back of Your Licensed Work that lists out what, exactly, You used from the SRD; or something else We haven’t thought of but You did. How You do that is entirely up to You; if Your readers can tell what’s what, We’re satisfied. But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision.
This is a real corker. Used to be you incuded a disclaimer saying "I used WotC stuff, it's in here too" and that was that. Now, if I make a 150-page document, I need to specifically pull very mention of every WotC content up and reference it so that nobody reading it is in the slightest doubt that Dragonborn were invented by them, not me! I personally would go for the index, for simplicity. I might even make a generic index of every piece of WotC content, whether I used it or not, and slap it at the end of the document as a legalese block to keep their lawyers happy.
Here's an example in the words of whoever wrote this as-yet unverified document:
i. Bruenor Battleaxe, author of Throwing Blades (a 5e Sourcebook), and Blocking Blades (a 5e Campaign) made a lot of money on those publications last year. Given how well Throwing Blades did, Bruenor decides to crowdfund for Blades II: Electric Boogaloo. He includes miniature replica blades as a stretch goal and has a backer-tier that grants access to all stretch goals. The replica blades are not Licensed Works (because they aren’t text-printed or printable) but all revenue from that backer-tier still counts as Qualifying Revenue.
ii. Bruenor runs the same campaign and includes the same miniatures, but makes them available as add-ons for separate purchase. Because the miniatures are not Licensed Works and are being purchased separately, none of the revenue from those purchases is Qualifying Revenue.
Which implies that you can make non-static-document content, but it is not covered by the licence. They don't say "we'll come for Bruenors head", they imply that the physical parts are literally not part of the agreement (though here they are because they are a part of a kickstarter campaign). It also says that making minis for your OGL game does not make those minis licenced content. So separating what has to use the OGL and what doesn't into separate bundles of stuff could hap people with their worries over ownership; I haven't found anything saying that WotC owns your content (they specify they own the licnced content, which is what you're using, not what you're making, but not that they own your content), so iff you make a mini for a Bubberchubb, and then make a statblock for the Bubberchubb, you're going to own the IP because the mini is not icenced, and is therefore your own creation - only the statblock uses the OGL, and WotC only claims the bits you used (EG Str, Dex, Con Etc.) They don't claim the IP, only the mechanics and anthing you do use of theirs (EG Owlbears).
Proof of this unverified document implying that you retain ownership of your own stuff:
III. OWNERSHIP. You agree that We own copyright, trademark, and patent rights, if any, in the Licensed Content and the Unlicensed Content. We reserve all rights not expressly given to You through this agreement. You agree to include any copyright or other rights notices included with the Licensed Content in Your Licensed Works, and You may not impose any additional, different, or inconsistent terms or conditions with respect to the Licensed Content in any license You grant to any Licensed Works.
and the defintions:
i. Usable D&D Content (“Licensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that is included in the SRD v. 5.1, including basic game mechanics and a curated selection of classes, monsters, spells, and items that allow You to make content compatible with Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition.
ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.
iii. Your Content – These are the characters, classes, settings, spells, items, new rules, and other creations that You have crafted. They are Your original contributions to the works that You want to sell. This license permits You to combine Your content with the Licensed Content and commercially distribute the resulting works.
notice that there is a difference here between the Licenced Product (being the thing you make) and the Licenced Content (being the stuff WotC is letting you use in your Licenced Product). There is nothing in this document, that I can see, that lets WotC claim ownership of your content, your original material. The legalese makes it a bit hard to get through, but what they are saying is that you agree to say "WotC owns owlbears" and, if you have a separate licence agreement, "JK Rowling owns Hogwarts", when you publish your supplement: "Owlbears Attack Hogwarts".
I jumped to conclusions, then did the research, and was proven wrong.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
The issue wasn't that the creator would not retain their ownership, but that in addition to the creator retaining ownership, WotC also claims rights in perpetuity to use your creation any way they want without remunerating you.
"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?
I didn't see that in there. I don't claim to be infallable, so I will check again. But the document I read said that they retain rights to "Licenced Content", which is the stuff they wrote and licenced you to use (EG Owlbears), not the stuff you make under the licence. Back to the document I go!
-Edit: Yep, there's two "Ownership" sections, which both clearly state that WotC owns their stuff, not yours. They own Licenced and Unlicenced Content, which is defined earlier as the content they include in the SRD to let you make your content compatible with D&D 5e. Nowhere do they claim to perpetually own your IP. Nor could they - think of the legal battles if it's more than just something you made up:
Example: You have written 10 bestselling novels, and you decide to make some of the monsters compatible for D&D. The IP for the monsters is yours already, and now you use the OGL to make them for D&D. WotC will claim ownership of the basic rules and the spells you cite from their content, but your own stuff is still your own.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I am not what I would refer to as content creator nor am I any sort of expert in OGLs or any sort of leagal terminology. I am just your avergae DND player/ DM.
This new OGL will cripple the dnd community and this game we all love so much. If this goes forward many of the content creators I follow and support will be incedily effected, perhaps even to the point of not being able to create what they love anymore. If this new OGL goes through I am disgusted by the thought that content that I creat, items, backgrounds, feats, races, subclasses ect, can just be ued by WoTC without my knwoedlge, consent or any ackwoeldgment that it was my creative mind that came up with the ideas using the framework of DND.
I love DND and one of the reasosns I do is that I can add things to the already existing content to better play the game the way I want. I believe, like many other posters here that DND is strongest and best when content creators and average dnd players are able to create unbridled.
I am dissapointed in WoTC not only becuase this OGL 1.1 is being discussed but because they have said nothing since this article came out nearly a month ago. Surely they have seen the dissapointment, outrage, and shock of the community?
I sincely hope that WoTC is listening to its community and is looking to revise or simply scrap the OGL1.1. Or else do the honest thing and call it like it is. The OGL1.1 is a CGl.
Under OGL: Commercial at around page 7
Edit: Sorry, 2 places, page 7 and 14
Thank you for posting your interpretation. I would be interested in your thoughts regarding the 30 day period for them to change the rules of the revenue sharing over 750k or their ability to force 3rd party publishers to stop selling/destroy inventory at a whim. Are these provisions as onerous as they sound or are there safeguards for content producers from Hasbro corporate fiat?
I stand corrected! Though there is the sentiment to contemplate (not legal or anything, but...
X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can’t and won’t cancel products out of fear that they’d be seen as “similar to” Licensed Works. Therefore:
Which implies that, as I had suspected, this is purely to cover them aganst people trying to claim that they thought of it first.
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!