Search results

I think the right way to read this is that it covers (a) but not (b), and (c) turns on a separate issue. What's licensed is the previous work (the "previously published content"). An updated version isn't licensed because it has new content. A new product that uses no WOTC material may or may...

This is a really good point. The way OGL 1.0a works, everything relying on OGL 1.0a is automatically itself licensed under OGL 1.0a (with certain limits for non-mechanics and story elements/"Product Identity"). If you deauthorize OGL 1.0a, and the deauthorization is valid, are those licenses...

Good to hear that they're looking at adding previous edition content. That together with the irrevocability clause make me a lot happier with this.

I think having a content policy for a platform is fine. I do think it's different when we're not talking about one platform declining to host something, but about an open space that has been functioning for 20+ years suddenly being subject to the censorship of an image- and brand-conscious...

Forgive me if this has already been answered: it looks from the document that they're deauthorizing OGL 1.0 and licensing only the 5e SRD under OGL 1.2. So what happens to products that rely on pre-5e SRD content? I'm thinking particularly (because it's my niche) of the small amount of 3pp...

Probably a cease and desist letter if they decide you're significant enough to matter. And if you ignore that, a strategic decision by WOTC and its lawyers about whether it's worth a lawsuit.

Paizo releases very little content for 5e (there's the stuff for Kingmaker and I think that's it?) and if I had to guess who the "large corporations" WOTC is angry at are, I'd guess Paizo tops the list. So I'm not at all sure that they had the kind of privileged access to info that this thread...

It's not contradictory--it's just a version from before they reversed course.

The OGL 1.0a only does this for game mechanics. The draft OGL 1.1 would have applied to "Product Identity" as well.

If they can validly deauthorize the 1.0a OGL, they can argue that it's infringing. That's the whole point of deauthorizing. If they can't, then this is all moot because anyone who doesn't want to be under WOTC's content control just won't publish under the new OGL. (But that's why WOTC wants to...

The thing is, there is already an OGL that is actually open and does not allow for broad content control--an OGL that's been in effect for more than twenty years and hasn't actually led to D&D's brand being destroyed. (The most serious recent harm to D&D's brand just came from WOTC.) Revoking...

I think you're right that this is why the lawyers added it but it's still way too broad a transfer of rights to be acceptable. It's not a reasonable deal to cut off the risk of frivolous litigation by just getting rid of the other party's rights.

WOTC was also very slow on this. (Even comparatively speaking, they were way slower than Paizo, for example.) Not exactly a huge legacy of trust there, at least not from me.

But that's the whole problem: if WOTC is going to use content provisions to do brand protection, then there's no clear limit on how far that goes. It's way broader than hateful or discriminatory products or anything sexually explicit. I don't think they should have the discretion. WOTC can...

It's always possible they backtrack further but I think the clear implication here is that it won't be. Aside from the language of this release, it would also just be very odd for WOTC to release a new OGL that is substantially more restrictive without revoking the old one--there would be no...

I don't have a problem with the principle that OGL products shouldn't be hateful and discriminatory but it does still seem to be an issue to give WOTC total discretion on what does and does not fit into that category. Boycotts and other kinds of consumer/industry pressure seem better suited for...

I'm also confused by: "The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns...

It doesn't sound like they're backing down on revoking 1.0a (though they say "Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected). The idea seems to be, they'll make OGL 2.0 substantively more attractive. I don't know that that's going to be enough with all the mistrust.

ORC is viable for Paizo because (at least in Paizo's view) nothing about Pathfinder 2e depends on OGL 1.0. But I'm not sure where this leaves publishers who primarily create products for D&D 5E (or for that matter PF1E). ORC won't be enough because the underlying D&D material won't be licensed...

I don't think the colloquial-language explanations are inconsistent with it being the (draft) official license. You see this sometimes with legal documents that are meant to be understood by an average reader.