# Quotes from OGL 1.1 (via Linda Condega)



## Morrus

Linda Condega from Gizmodo has a copy of the OGL and is sharing snippets on Twitter.



			https://twitter.com/lincodega
		



“[The original OGL] wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.”
“It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
“This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and... any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.”
“This agreement is… an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement”


----------



## Yaarel

Is the OGL 1.1 itself trying to revoke the earlier OGL?

Or is it saying that future WotC products will no longer use the earlier OGL?


----------



## Yaarel

It seems to me, the prohibition of "pantomimes" relates to punishing and monetizing things like cosplay and LARP combats, such as Wizard spells as part of the combat.


----------



## p_johnston

Yaarel said:


> Is the OGL 1.1 itself trying to revoke the earlier OGL?
> 
> Or is it saying that future WotC products will no longer use the earlier OGL?



WotC is getting crapped on HARD by the community right now. This is a whole lot of bad PR for them and the longer it goes on the harder it will be for them to undo it. If they weren't planning on trying to do the thing that everyone is hating on them for they would have made an announcement as soon as possible. 
Then again the Execs at Wotc are apparently idiots so who knows?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

p_johnston said:


> Then again the Execs at Wotc are apparently idiots so who knows?


----------



## Drake2000

p_johnston said:


> WotC is getting crapped on HARD by the community right now.



Some of them are former MS execs. They _have _to be pretty inured to customer criticisms by now.


----------



## Bacon Bits

p_johnston said:


> WotC is getting crapped on HARD by the community right now. This is a whole lot of bad PR for them and the longer it goes on the harder it will be for them to undo it. If they weren't planning on trying to do the thing that everyone is hating on them for they would have made an announcement as soon as possible.
> Then again the Execs at Wotc are apparently idiots so who knows?



Hey, it's the same people who thought the Magic 30th Anniversary Edition should be a non-tournament legal edition of Alpha/Beta except $250 for a pack of 15 cards.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Yaarel said:


> It seems to me, the prohibition of "pantomimes" relates to punishing and monetizing things like cosplay and LARP combats, such as Wizard spells as part of the combat.




 It's really doing things like that on Tik Tok. Still really stupid.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Morrus said:


> Linda Condega from Gizmodo has a copy of the OGL and is sharing snippets on Twitter.
> 
> 
> 
> https://twitter.com/lincodega
> 
> 
> 
> 
> “[The original OGL] wasn’t intended to subsidize major competitors, especially now that PDF is by far the most common form of distribution.”
> “It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes."
> “This agreement governs Your use of the Licensed Content and... any prior agreements between Us and You are no longer in force.”
> “This agreement is… an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement”




 She also shared that this was actually supposed to be released today and wasn't suggests that this thing might already be dead or on the cusp of it, and leaking this is just to make sure those supposing OGL 1.1 can't save it.

 It's not been released when it was supposed to be, WotC has assumed complete dead silence on this even after it was confirmed by Kickstarter, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC is in utter chaos right now and I'm wondering if Ray Winninger knew about this and if he resigned over it.


----------



## GMforPowergamers

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's really doing things like that on Tik Tok. Still really stupid.



3/4 of the Tik Tok creators I follow are D&D related so that could suck


----------



## ersatzphil

Henadic Theologian said:


> It's not been released when it was supposed to be, WotC has assumed complete dead silence on this even after it was confirmed by Kickstarter, I wouldn't be surprised if WotC is in utter chaos right now and I'm wondering if Ray Winninger knew about this and if he resigned over it.



…I hadn’t even thought of this in relation to Winningers’ sudden departure. That’s an interesting question, though I doubt we’ll ever know the answer.


----------



## Sacrosanct

ersatzphil said:


> …I hadn’t even thought of this in relation to Winningers’ sudden departure. That’s an interesting question, though I doubt we’ll ever know the answer.



I asked him, but I don’t expect an answer.


----------



## teitan

Sounds to me like WOTC confuses OGL, OGC and STL.


----------



## dave2008

Yaarel said:


> Is the OGL 1.1 itself trying to revoke the earlier OGL?



Yes, from the leaks we have seen that is the intent. It is "de-authorizing" the earlier versions of the OGL.


----------



## Sacrosanct

teitan said:


> Sounds to me like WOTC confuses OGL, OGC and STL.



STL?  Do you mean SRD?  Lol


----------



## Staffan

Sacrosanct said:


> STL?  Do you mean SRD?  Lol



Back in 2000, Wizards offered two licenses in parallel: the Open Gaming License, and the d20 System Trademark License (the d20 STL). The OGL covered the copyright side of things, enabling other creators to make derivative works of the SRD and of other Open Content. It also stipulates that a work under the OGL may not use any trademarks belonging to others, including as a means of indicating compatibility (that's one of the things you give up by agreeing to the license), unless given specific permission to do so.

The d20 System Trademark License was that permission. It allowed you to use a "d20 System" logo (which you'll also see on pretty much all the 3e books from Wizards), and to include the phrase "Requires the D&D Player's Handbook to play" (or one of a number of specified variants thereof) on the book's cover. It came with a number of limits, the main one being that your book could not include rules for creating or advancing a character. So the book could have a whole bunch of feats, for example, but it could not say "You gain a feat at 1st level and then at every level evenly divisible by 3." because that tells you (part of) what happens when advancing a character in level. There were also rules about including a certain percentage of OGC, about adhering to "community standards" (added in response to the Book of Erotic Fantasy), and a long list of game terms whose definition you couldn't change.

Unlike the OGL, the d20 STL made no claims to perpetuity, and had rules much more slanted in Wizards' favor about changing it. It was eventually withdrawn at about the same time 4e was released.

The OGL 1.1 sounds a lot more like the d20 STL than the OGL, what with badges to put on your works and requiring adherence to certain values and the like.


----------



## Reynard

teitan said:


> Sounds to me like WOTC confuses OGL, OGC and STL.



You can be pretty sure nothing about this is the result of confusion.


----------



## teitan

Reynard said:


> You can be pretty sure nothing about this is the result of confusion.



Oh it’s confusion. Intentional.


----------



## Reynard

teitan said:


> Oh it’s confusion. Intentional.



Those are antonyms.


----------



## Sacrosanct

Staffan said:


> Back in 2000, Wizards offered two licenses in parallel: the Open Gaming License, and the d20 System Trademark License (the d20 STL). The OGL covered the copyright side of things, enabling other creators to make derivative works of the SRD and of other Open Content. It also stipulates that a work under the OGL may not use any trademarks belonging to others, including as a means of indicating compatibility (that's one of the things you give up by agreeing to the license), unless given specific permission to do so.
> 
> The d20 System Trademark License was that permission. It allowed you to use a "d20 System" logo (which you'll also see on pretty much all the 3e books from Wizards), and to include the phrase "Requires the D&D Player's Handbook to play" (or one of a number of specified variants thereof) on the book's cover. It came with a number of limits, the main one being that your book could not include rules for creating or advancing a character. So the book could have a whole bunch of feats, for example, but it could not say "You gain a feat at 1st level and then at every level evenly divisible by 3." because that tells you (part of) what happens when advancing a character in level. There were also rules about including a certain percentage of OGC, about adhering to "community standards" (added in response to the Book of Erotic Fantasy), and a long list of game terms whose definition you couldn't change.
> 
> Unlike the OGL, the d20 STL made no claims to perpetuity, and had rules much more slanted in Wizards' favor about changing it. It was eventually withdrawn at about the same time 4e was released.
> 
> The OGL 1.1 sounds a lot more like the d20 STL than the OGL, what with badges to put on your works and requiring adherence to certain values and the like.



Ah. It’s probably because as a miniature tinkerer, I see STL and think 3D file lol. But now I do recall the other. Thanks !


----------



## teitan

Reynard said:


> Those are antonyms.



Ok it’s obfuscation to intentionally confuse themselves.


----------



## Reynard

teitan said:


> Ok it’s obfuscation to intentionally confuse themselves.



Why would they want to confuse themselves? they know what they are doing. This isn't an accident.


----------



## teitan

Reynard said:


> Why would they want to confuse themselves? they know what they are doing. This isn't an accident.



I’m being facetious. It’s called a joke son. _impersonates foghorn leghorn_


----------



## reelo

dave2008 said:


> Yes, from the leaks we have seen that is the intent. It is "de-authorizing" the earlier versions of the OGL.



I still say that any publisher that _has_ used OGL 1.0(a) up until now, and continues to do so without switching to 1.1 should be safe, because you cannot invalitate a valid license using a new license if said pybilisher does not adopt that license.


----------



## dave2008

reelo said:


> I still say that any publisher that _has_ used OGL 1.0(a) up until now, and continues to do so without switching to 1.1 should be safe, because you cannot invalitate a valid license using a new license if said pybilisher does not adopt that license.



While I agree, I have seen lawyers, who know better than I do, disagree.


----------



## BrassDragon

EDIT: wrong thread


----------

