Explain and elaborate? The new OGL is irrevocable, perpetual, no royalties, no reporting, no strange change clause, clear limits, rules for similarity and ownership
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?
Because the power to deauthorize 1.0a is made up. Doesn't exist. Was not reserved for Hasbro/WotC in the original document.
This is better, sure, and gives on a lot of areas - but the idea that they "have to" deauthorize 1.0a is disingenuous. They neither have to, nor can do so.
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.
Not for anything anytbody wants to release that is new content using content already released under OGL 1.0a.
That means SRD 5.1. It was released under OGL 1.0a and thus it remains covered under OGL 1.0a PERPETUALLY.
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.
A big question that needs to be resolved is what exactly this means for products published using the 3.0, 3.5, or 5.0 SRDs. The block about
Our Licensed Content. This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license) that is not licensed to you under Creative Commons. You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license.
could mean that such products are completely unaffected.
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.
Not for anything anytbody wants to release that is new content using content already released under OGL 1.0a.
That means SRD 5.1. It was released under OGL 1.0a and thus it remains covered under OGL 1.0a PERPETUALLY.
This goes to court.
Sure. All the best.
Anyway, moving on...
#Victory
Hasbro/WotC listened to the community, released a good new OGL that is better, and opening communication and some transparency. Total win. I am so relieved.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
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.
"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful"
Is it hateful to say that all orcs are evil? Is it hateful to not have perfectly diverse illustrations? What if I, by accident, write something that hurts a group of people I have never even heard about?
A big no to the OGL until that part is crystal clear and all ambiguity is removed from the text.
I'm hoping that some of the 3PP will issue statements that indicate that they are at least ok with this, since that is what most folks seemed most upset about. Personally, this seems fine to me.
Of course some folks are never going to be happy, as evident in some of the posts already on this thread.
"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful"
Is it hateful to say that all orcs are evil? Is it hateful to not have perfectly diverse illustrations? What if I, by accident, write something that hurts a group of people I have never even heard about?
A big no to the OGL until that part is crystal clear and all ambiguity is removed from the text.
I'm with you, this is worse than the last one!
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.
A big question that needs to be resolved is what exactly this means for products published using the 3.0, 3.5, or 5.0 SRDs. The block about
Our Licensed Content. This license covers any content in the SRD 5.1 (or any subsequent version of the SRD we release under this license) that is not licensed to you under Creative Commons. You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license.
could mean that such products are completely unaffected.
That's an actual good question, yeah. The older SRDs for editions before this one are all OGL 1.0a, and no provision is being made for them in this new license. I think that means those products would no longer be available for use in OGL products, but it is also the case that the core D&D ruleset is being put into Creative Commons and people using the basic 3.5 ruleset may no longer need the OGL to make derivative games such as Dungeon Smashers OSR 9001 or the like.
They cannot de-authorize the 1.0a. Prepare the lawsuits as this is the only way they will learn.
This is false. 1.0 confers no rights until entered into under its acceptance terms and 1.0’s very text anticipated that one day it will be revoked as an offer.
A judge should laugh you out of court if you make this argument - I can’t think of a single judge who would say anyone has to perpetually keep an offer hanging open in the aether indefinitely.
"(d)Severability.If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
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.
That's not what it says at all. You can no longer publish under 1.0a by claiming they have thee power to de-authorize 1.0a... which they have no power to do.
If they continue this line of thinking they will get burned, badly. Very good chance the 1.0a gets held up in court and if someone is being very vindictive seen clarity to remove most of WOTC's (perceived) grip on the rules.
That's an actual good question, yeah. The older SRDs for editions before this one are all OGL 1.0a, and no provision is being made for them in this new license. I think that means those products would no longer be available for use in OGL products
It could easily mean that OGL 1.0a remains in effect for those SRDs (well, I think the 3.0 SRD would be 1.0).
Anyway, aside from that, there's some clarity issues that should be cleaned up and there's some legal loopholes that should get closed (the rules for changing certain clauses might be a problem), but my only structural issue is the fact that the new SRD only covers printed media and static electronic files, which means no DM tools.
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.
That's not what it says at all. You can no longer publish under 1.0a by claiming they have thee power to de-authorize 1.0a... which they have no power to do.
If they continue this line of thinking they will get burned, badly. Very good chance the 1.0a gets held up in court and if someone is being very vindictive seen clarity to remove most of WOTC's (perceived) grip on the rules.
(not a lawyer, not legal advice).
Says the person trying to tell the Lawyer what is and isn't legal.
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
3. WHAT YOU OWN. Your Licensed Works are yours. They may not be copied or used without your permission. You acknowledge that we and our licensees, as content creators ourselves, might independently come up with content similar to something you create. If you have a claim that we breached this provision, or that one of our licensees did in connection with content they licensed from us:
(a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief. (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
I'm hoping that some of the 3PP will issue statements that indicate that they are at least ok with this, since that is what most folks seemed most upset about. Personally, this seems fine to me.
Of course some folks are never going to be happy, as evident in some of the posts already on this thread.
I haven't had the opportunity to look in detail, but what I've seen so far is much better. Maybe even acceptable for content creators making content for 6e. That's great.
But they don't need to deauth 1.0a for this.
The whole point of wording 1.0a as it was to give people a choice, a safe harbor. It's on them to make 1.2 something people are willing to go to voluntarily because it's awesome - not by slamming the door on an earlier, perpetual license that essentially says it will always be an option.
"(d)Severability.If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
What this means is that if a government passes a law somewhere that - somehow - makes part of the OGL invalid/illegal/unable to be legally enforced, or someone manages to win a case saying that part of the OGL doesn't apply to them, Wizards has the right to decide what to do about that. It's probably necessary, to deal with the fact that laws change but this document isn't allowed to. Under normal/expected usage of the document, this will never come up.
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.
That's not what it says at all. You can no longer publish under 1.0a by claiming they have thee power to de-authorize 1.0a... which they have no power to do.
If they continue this line of thinking they will get burned, badly. Very good chance the 1.0a gets held up in court and if someone is being very vindictive seen clarity to remove most of WOTC's (perceived) grip on the rules.
(not a lawyer, not legal advice).
This is PRECISELY the risk they run, and it is likely the 3pp will take this to court.
Also, the termination clauses give them the power to pull the rug out from under ANY 3pp that is starting to get too big for their likng, and all they ahve to do is declare it hateful and it cannot be taken to court under the terms of the license.
This is a steaming pile of garbage.
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.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Explain and elaborate? The new OGL is irrevocable, perpetual, no royalties, no reporting, no strange change clause, clear limits, rules for similarity and ownership
Because the power to deauthorize 1.0a is made up. Doesn't exist. Was not reserved for Hasbro/WotC in the original document.
This is better, sure, and gives on a lot of areas - but the idea that they "have to" deauthorize 1.0a is disingenuous. They neither have to, nor can do so.
Not for anything anytbody wants to release that is new content using content already released under OGL 1.0a.
That means SRD 5.1. It was released under OGL 1.0a and thus it remains covered under OGL 1.0a PERPETUALLY.
This goes to court.
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'm no attorney, but if I'm reading this correctly, it's pretty much everything we wanted.
A big question that needs to be resolved is what exactly this means for products published using the 3.0, 3.5, or 5.0 SRDs. The block about
could mean that such products are completely unaffected.
They cannot de-authorize the 1.0a. Prepare the lawsuits as this is the only way they will learn.
Sure. All the best.
Anyway, moving on...
#Victory
Hasbro/WotC listened to the community, released a good new OGL that is better, and opening communication and some transparency. Total win. I am so relieved.
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.
"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful"
Is it hateful to say that all orcs are evil? Is it hateful to not have perfectly diverse illustrations? What if I, by accident, write something that hurts a group of people I have never even heard about?
A big no to the OGL until that part is crystal clear and all ambiguity is removed from the text.
I'm hoping that some of the 3PP will issue statements that indicate that they are at least ok with this, since that is what most folks seemed most upset about. Personally, this seems fine to me.
Of course some folks are never going to be happy, as evident in some of the posts already on this thread.
I'm with you, this is worse than the last one!
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.
That's an actual good question, yeah. The older SRDs for editions before this one are all OGL 1.0a, and no provision is being made for them in this new license. I think that means those products would no longer be available for use in OGL products, but it is also the case that the core D&D ruleset is being put into Creative Commons and people using the basic 3.5 ruleset may no longer need the OGL to make derivative games such as Dungeon Smashers OSR 9001 or the like.
LEGAL PEOPLE: am I totally off-base here?
Please do not contact or message me.
This is false. 1.0 confers no rights until entered into under its acceptance terms and 1.0’s very text anticipated that one day it will be revoked as an offer.
A judge should laugh you out of court if you make this argument - I can’t think of a single judge who would say anyone has to perpetually keep an offer hanging open in the aether indefinitely.
"(d) Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may
declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its
entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which
is unenforceable or invalid did not exist."
This doesn't sit too well with me... So you're telling me that at any point they don't like something about this license or can't enforce something they dislike they can just claim the entire thing as being void and null.
That's not what it says at all. You can no longer publish under 1.0a by claiming they have thee power to de-authorize 1.0a... which they have no power to do.
If they continue this line of thinking they will get burned, badly. Very good chance the 1.0a gets held up in court and if someone is being very vindictive seen clarity to remove most of WOTC's (perceived) grip on the rules.
(not a lawyer, not legal advice).
It could easily mean that OGL 1.0a remains in effect for those SRDs (well, I think the 3.0 SRD would be 1.0).
Anyway, aside from that, there's some clarity issues that should be cleaned up and there's some legal loopholes that should get closed (the rules for changing certain clauses might be a problem), but my only structural issue is the fact that the new SRD only covers printed media and static electronic files, which means no DM tools.
Says the person trying to tell the Lawyer what is and isn't legal.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
I do have one significant objection to this new OGL v.1.2. p1 §3 ¶s a & b
That means we can sue for cash, but we cannot sue to have our names put on it. It also means that, no matter how similar something they publish is to something someone else writes, even if it’s nigh identical, unless you can absolutely PROVE beyond a smell of a shadow of a doubt that they stole your idea, you can’t sue for bupkis.
I would like at the very least to be able to sue for recognition.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
I haven't had the opportunity to look in detail, but what I've seen so far is much better. Maybe even acceptable for content creators making content for 6e. That's great.
But they don't need to deauth 1.0a for this.
The whole point of wording 1.0a as it was to give people a choice, a safe harbor. It's on them to make 1.2 something people are willing to go to voluntarily because it's awesome - not by slamming the door on an earlier, perpetual license that essentially says it will always be an option.
What this means is that if a government passes a law somewhere that - somehow - makes part of the OGL invalid/illegal/unable to be legally enforced, or someone manages to win a case saying that part of the OGL doesn't apply to them, Wizards has the right to decide what to do about that. It's probably necessary, to deal with the fact that laws change but this document isn't allowed to. Under normal/expected usage of the document, this will never come up.
Please do not contact or message me.
This is PRECISELY the risk they run, and it is likely the 3pp will take this to court.
Also, the termination clauses give them the power to pull the rug out from under ANY 3pp that is starting to get too big for their likng, and all they ahve to do is declare it hateful and it cannot be taken to court under the terms of the license.
This is a steaming pile of garbage.
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.