"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after(effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."
And there you have it people. Let the riots escalate further.
"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after(effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."
And there you have it people. Let the riots escalate further.
Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
WOTC: So you know the thing that made our game so widely popular and successful? Let's **** that up and try to screw over literally everyone that's made something related to DnD. Lmao.
How does that “screw over literally anyone who’s made something related to DnD?”
See, I'm working my way through the statement now and I'm seeing the D&D core rules being released under a Creative Commons license Wizards will no longer control once instated (i.e. exactly what people asked for when they said "SIGN ORC OR DIE FOREVER" - Wizards is surrendering their ability to muck with the core rules), and also seeing that Wizards is actively stating they cannot change anything in 1.2 once 1.2 releases save how to cite Wizards and how to contact Wizards (i.e. the whole "IF THE TERMS CAN CHANGE THEN IT'S ALL JUST SMOKE" bit - Wizards is explicitly surrendering their ability to change the terms of the license).
If legal people I can trust are able to vet the terms of the actual legal document and ascertain they're in compliance with what Wizards is saying elsewhere in plainspeak? We can call this pretty much a total victory. We'll have secured everything we really wanted, even beyond what I figured we'd get. So maybe keep the Rampaging Intense Outrageous Theatrics at bay until the legal people can get a look at this one?
So... Maybe wizards doesn't know what an NFT is... Let me help you.
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided, that is recorded in a blockchain, and that is used to certify authenticity and ownership.
This is NOT an animated sprite on a VTT... just saying
Best I can tell the big things here are that OGL 1.0a is still deauthorized (which is a problem in any situation but may not be that big of a deal given the rest of the license) and that VTTs have been put on notice.
So arguably the people in trouble have moved from 3pp's to VTTs like foundry and owlbear rodeo which don't have known relationships with WotC.
This is everything I was counting on and more. No royalty or licenseback, check. Only applies to tabletop, check. Morality clause, check.
And yes, they have to deauthorize 1.0a to cover those last two.
The only thing that surprised me is the true irrevocability/immutability. I was expecting we'd have to argue that point, but they came up with a sensible way to include that right off the bat. So far I am feeling good about this version.
This is a good document, and one that should satisfy everyone. It is clearly written, does not confer to Wizards any ridiculous rights, and very clearly provides protections to creators for the long term.
Regarding the “deauthorisation” language, all that says is that 1.0 cannot be used moving forward - something 1.0 specifically states can happen. However, it also explicitly says:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Thats great - it means you get your 1.0 rights still on the things you already had 1.0 rights, guaranteeing 1.0 rights that are incredibly nebulous and not explicitly guaranteed.
And, if you didn’t have those rights, you can use the superior 1.2 rules that are not ambiguous and much more clearly spell out what protections you have—and the fact that you will have those protections forever.
Everyone should really really read and understand this new draft. It is actually really good. So, again: Read that draft carefully, before demanding strange stuff that is generally unrealistic, or before you are just rioting again...
This is a good document, and one that should satisfy everyone. It is clearly written, does not confer to Wizards any ridiculous rights, and very clearly provides protections to creators for the long term.
Regarding the “deauthorisation” language, all that says is that 1.0 cannot be used moving forward - something 1.0 specifically states can happen. However, it also explicitly says:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Thats great - it means you get your 1.0 rights still on the things you already had 1.0 rights, guaranteeing 1.0 rights that are incredibly nebulous and not explicitly guaranteed.
And, if you didn’t have those rights, you can use the superior 1.2 rules that are not ambiguous and much more clearly spell out what protections you have—and the fact that you will have those protections forever.
This is everything I was counting on and more. No royalty or licenseback, check. Only applies to tabletop, check. Morality clause, check.
And yes, they have to deauthorize 1.0a to cover those last two.
The only thing that surprised me is the true irrevocability/immutability. I was expecting we'd have to argue that point, but they came up with a sensible way to include that right off the bat. So far I am feeling good about this version.
It's TRASH! They CANNOT "deauthorize OGL 1.0a and they KNOW it, they ahve declared NUCLEAR LAWFARE!
This is NO DIFFERENT from OGL 1.1
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.
What? They keep everything published under 1.0a licenced under 1.0a without changes and the new OGL is even better and irrevocable, what is you actual problem with that?
This is a good document, and one that should satisfy everyone. It is clearly written, does not confer to Wizards any ridiculous rights, and very clearly provides protections to creators for the long term.
Regarding the “deauthorisation” language, all that says is that 1.0 cannot be used moving forward - something 1.0 specifically states can happen. However, it also explicitly says:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Thats great - it means you get your 1.0 rights still on the things you already had 1.0 rights, guaranteeing 1.0 rights that are incredibly nebulous and not explicitly guaranteed.
And, if you didn’t have those rights, you can use the superior 1.2 rules that are not ambiguous and much more clearly spell out what protections you have—and the fact that you will have those protections forever.
This is everything I was counting on and more. No royalty or licenseback, check. Only applies to tabletop, check. Morality clause, check.
And yes, they have to deauthorize 1.0a to cover those last two.
The only thing that surprised me is the true irrevocability/immutability. I was expecting we'd have to argue that point, but they came up with a sensible way to include that right off the bat. So far I am feeling good about this version.
It's TRASH! They CANNOT "deauthorize OGL 1.0a and they KNOW it, they ahve declared NUCLEAR LAWFARE!
This is NO DIFFERENT from OGL 1.1
Uh, yes, they can deauthorise OGL 1 for future content.
It still applies to everything already released.
The OGL 2 includes all the same protections OGL had - and even more. It's actually better for creators than OGL was.
So either you didn't read it, don't understand it or this is some form of satire I don't understand.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
They CANNOT deauthorize 1.0a. It will go to court and I will defnitely participate.
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.
Okay, so I'm not a legal person and cannot say if there's any Whoopsies in this version...but I'll be honest, the document if brief and plaintext enough that I can understand most of it. And I see no cause for complaints.
The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
Also, maybe don't be a total cockwaffle when making D&D content and it won't ever apply.
Otherwise I'm not seeing any obvious-to-laymen "Gotcha!" clauses or the like. There's an "All Rights Reserved" bit, but that's perfectly normal and doesn't really affect the license agreement to the best of my woefully limited knowledge. Just means you're allowed to do what Wizards explicitly says you can do and not anything else, but since they explicitly say you can use the SRD freely in Your Licensed Work and that's the bit people need to make 5e content, I don't see how it's an issue.
Now, obviously this is still a draft and we're not out of the woods yet. Vigilance is still required, and doing our due diligence to read the document and provide honest and intelligent feedback is critical. But...things seem to be looking up, if I'm any judge.
I will be honest; I have no idea what is going on.
I wish more people running around these forums had this level of honesty, and didn't just parrot something they heard on YouTube to seem like they do know what's going on
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock) Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric) Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue) Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432-starting-the-ogl-playtest
"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This
means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective
date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license.
Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you
published that content."
And there you have it people. Let the riots escalate further.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I will be honest; I have no idea what is going on.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
How does that “screw over literally anyone who’s made something related to DnD?”
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
See, I'm working my way through the statement now and I'm seeing the D&D core rules being released under a Creative Commons license Wizards will no longer control once instated (i.e. exactly what people asked for when they said "SIGN ORC OR DIE FOREVER" - Wizards is surrendering their ability to muck with the core rules), and also seeing that Wizards is actively stating they cannot change anything in 1.2 once 1.2 releases save how to cite Wizards and how to contact Wizards (i.e. the whole "IF THE TERMS CAN CHANGE THEN IT'S ALL JUST SMOKE" bit - Wizards is explicitly surrendering their ability to change the terms of the license).
If legal people I can trust are able to vet the terms of the actual legal document and ascertain they're in compliance with what Wizards is saying elsewhere in plainspeak? We can call this pretty much a total victory. We'll have secured everything we really wanted, even beyond what I figured we'd get. So maybe keep the Rampaging Intense Outrageous Theatrics at bay until the legal people can get a look at this one?
Please do not contact or message me.
So.. Desuthorizing the 1.0a for the even better for 3pp 1.2?
That's the kind of walk back I can get behind.
So... Maybe wizards doesn't know what an NFT is... Let me help you.
A non-fungible token (NFT) is a unique digital identifier that cannot be copied, substituted, or subdivided, that is recorded in a blockchain, and that is used to certify authenticity and ownership.
This is NOT an animated sprite on a VTT... just saying
Best I can tell the big things here are that OGL 1.0a is still deauthorized (which is a problem in any situation but may not be that big of a deal given the rest of the license) and that VTTs have been put on notice.
So arguably the people in trouble have moved from 3pp's to VTTs like foundry and owlbear rodeo which don't have known relationships with WotC.
This is everything I was counting on and more. No royalty or licenseback, check. Only applies to tabletop, check. Morality clause, check.
And yes, they have to deauthorize 1.0a to cover those last two.
The only thing that surprised me is the true irrevocability/immutability. I was expecting we'd have to argue that point, but they came up with a sensible way to include that right off the bat. So far I am feeling good about this version.
This is a good document, and one that should satisfy everyone. It is clearly written, does not confer to Wizards any ridiculous rights, and very clearly provides protections to creators for the long term.
Regarding the “deauthorisation” language, all that says is that 1.0 cannot be used moving forward - something 1.0 specifically states can happen. However, it also explicitly says:
It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content.
Thats great - it means you get your 1.0 rights still on the things you already had 1.0 rights, guaranteeing 1.0 rights that are incredibly nebulous and not explicitly guaranteed.
And, if you didn’t have those rights, you can use the superior 1.2 rules that are not ambiguous and much more clearly spell out what protections you have—and the fact that you will have those protections forever.
Everyone should really really read and understand this new draft. It is actually really good. So, again: Read that draft carefully, before demanding strange stuff that is generally unrealistic, or before you are just rioting again...
The hate mongers on youtube are still trying to sell this as bad and I don't expect many people to read and think for themselves at this point.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
It's TRASH! They CANNOT "deauthorize OGL 1.0a and they KNOW it, they ahve declared NUCLEAR LAWFARE!
This is NO DIFFERENT from OGL 1.1
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.
What? They keep everything published under 1.0a licenced under 1.0a without changes and the new OGL is even better and irrevocable, what is you actual problem with that?
Uh, yes, they can deauthorise OGL 1 for future content.
It still applies to everything already released.
The OGL 2 includes all the same protections OGL had - and even more. It's actually better for creators than OGL was.
So either you didn't read it, don't understand it or this is some form of satire I don't understand.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
They CANNOT deauthorize 1.0a. It will go to court and I will defnitely participate.
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.
Okay, so I'm not a legal person and cannot say if there's any Whoopsies in this version...but I'll be honest, the document if brief and plaintext enough that I can understand most of it. And I see no cause for complaints.
The only thing people might have any serious reason to get uppity over is the provision that Wizards has the sole right to determine what qualifies as "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" and that signants of the new OGL waive their right to contest any such determination with any sort of legal action. Those are pretty broad powers and I just know a bunch of people are going to claim it's a Loophole Backdoor in the OGL, but I imagine the forum's legal people can tell me if I'm right on this one: Wizards cannot compel you to sacrifice your legal rights. If your license was terminated under Clause 6f, and you have a solid case that it was done maliciously and in breach of the contract, you can still sue Wizards for breaching the contract. Your case will be weaker, yes, but the company will also be getting excoriated in the court of public opinion for twisting their words and the court system will be looking over whether Wizards breached the terms of their license agreement with you based on an unreasonable reading of the document.
Also, maybe don't be a total cockwaffle when making D&D content and it won't ever apply.
Otherwise I'm not seeing any obvious-to-laymen "Gotcha!" clauses or the like. There's an "All Rights Reserved" bit, but that's perfectly normal and doesn't really affect the license agreement to the best of my woefully limited knowledge. Just means you're allowed to do what Wizards explicitly says you can do and not anything else, but since they explicitly say you can use the SRD freely in Your Licensed Work and that's the bit people need to make 5e content, I don't see how it's an issue.
Now, obviously this is still a draft and we're not out of the woods yet. Vigilance is still required, and doing our due diligence to read the document and provide honest and intelligent feedback is critical. But...things seem to be looking up, if I'm any judge.
Please do not contact or message me.
I wish more people running around these forums had this level of honesty, and didn't just parrot something they heard on YouTube to seem like they do know what's going on
Active characters:
Carric Aquissar, elven wannabe artist in his deconstructionist period (Archfey warlock)
Lan Kidogo, mapach archaeologist and treasure hunter (Knowledge cleric)
Mardan Ferres, elven private investigator obsessed with that one unsolved murder (Assassin rogue)
Xhekhetiel, halfling survivor of a Betrayer Gods cult (Runechild sorcerer/fighter)