# Indestructoboy is going through OGL1.1 live on YouTube (Link included)



## Greg K

Indestructoboy is going through OGL1.1 live


----------



## overgeeked

That’s absolutely wild.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> That’s absolutely wild.



I can't really watch this atm, is there a summary of the most salient points anywhere? I'm looking but haven't found one yet. Will link back if I do.


----------



## Reynard

I assume he got it from a leak and that person is going to be SCREWED.


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> I assume he got it from a leak and that person is going to be SCREWED.



The source stripped out anything that could give them away (according to the stream). Here’s to hoping they’re right.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> The source stripped out anything that could give them away (according to the stream). Here’s to hoping they’re right.



If people are right that the very language of the thing is a give away, how could they know?


----------



## overgeeked

Reynard said:


> If people are right that the very language of the thing is a give away, how could they know?



Fair. I keep seeing the odd paragraph breaks and keep thinking that’s a tell.


----------



## Reynard

overgeeked said:


> Fair. I keep seeing the odd paragraph breaks and keep thinking that’s a tell.



I can't watch it right now. I am just assuming that if WotC wants to know who leaked what, they will find out.


----------



## eyeheartawk

Reynard said:


> I can't watch it right now. I am just assuming that if WotC wants to know who leaked what, they will find out.



I think so. Though, I doubt they will pursue anybody over it legally. At this point another self-inflicted PR shot in the foot is probably not in the cards for them.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

overgeeked said:


> Fair. I keep seeing the odd paragraph breaks and keep thinking that’s a tell.



They could have been introduced by the person who leaked it to actually mess with WotC's ability to track it, too, though.


----------



## overgeeked

eyeheartawk said:


> I think so. Though, I doubt they will pursue anybody over it legally. At this point another self-inflicted PR shot in the foot is probably not in the cards for them.



I’m starting to think it’s an intentional leak. Release the real bad version then come in with a slightly less bad version and we collectively sigh in relief.


----------



## eyeheartawk

overgeeked said:


> I starting to think it’s an intentional leak. Release the real bad version then come in with a slightly less bad version and we collectively sigh in relief.



I mean it's _possible. _

But everybody has been mentioning what you just said, so the community is watching out for that. 

At this point, if that's true, this would be the most momentous self-own in history. Right now, anything short of them walking it back 100% and updating OGL 1.0a to further state that it can never be revoked ever, ever, ever, no take-backsies will be acceptable to most.


----------



## Haplo781

Of note: what's been circulating isn't the actual license, it's a natural language summary of the license.


----------



## Vivificient

Someone has transcribed the non-commercial license from this video and posted it in pastebin here:

Edit to add: One aspect I find particularly suprising is that the license defines Licensed Content only as the SRD 5.1.  There is no reference at all to open game content previously released under SRDs (3e and 3.5, for instance).  So it appears a publisher who accepted the new terms would be unable to use that old material at all.


----------



## Scribe

> A. Modification: This agreement is, along with the OGL: Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty days' notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website and by making public announcements of the changes through Our social media channels.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Vivificient said:


> Someone has transcribed the non-commercial license from this video and posted it in pastebin here:
> 
> Edit to add: One aspect I find particularly suprising is that the license defines Licensed Content only as the SRD 5.1.  There is no reference at all to open game content previously released under SRDs (3e and 3.5, for instance).  So it appears a publisher who accepted the new terms would be unable to use that old material at all.



Indeed.

1.1's commentary says:

"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”)."

But that's kind of total bollocks because it also defines Licenced Content:

"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."

Absolutely NOT the same thing as what "Open Game Content" meant.


----------

