# So what DOES 1.1 allow?



## Remathilis

A lot is being said about how 1.1 kills or attempts to kill 1.0a. That's being discussed everywhere.

Let's pretend 1.0a never existed and WotC is just making 1.1. No Paizos, no other large OGL games. WotC releasing 1.1 is the first opportunity to make D&D related content in the world.

What is in it for me? 

That's not a flippant statement. Someone please explain (like I was 12 if that helps) what are the advantages and disadvantages of using it? Don't compare it to 1.0a, I just want to know what 1.1 alone would offer. 

Anyone who can parse legalese, this would be appreciated.


----------



## mamba

You can use specific stuff from WotC's SRD (what exactly that is is not clear, your best guess is the OGC from the current one), provided you are ok with all the restrictions imposed on you


----------



## Umbran

I mean, in the snarkiest way possible...

It gives you the right to publish stuff based on their rulesets, with the added features that they take a cut if you do well, can change the amount of cut with 30 days notice, and can revoke your right to publish at any time, while they retain the right to publish your stuff without paying you in perpetuity.


----------



## OB1

The primary advantage is that you get to publish printed materials (including PDFs) that includes official D&D content.  You also benefit from D&D's popularity.
The primary disadvantage is that on revenues over 750k, you pay a royalty to WotC (and also must report revenues over 50k).  

It's up to you if the benefit to your product of D&Ds popularity outweighs the cost of paying WotC a royalty on revenues over 750k.


----------



## Princessmaker

It gives you a sticker


----------



## Reynard

I am sure the compatibility logo is intended to be a boon.


----------



## Greg Benage

I think the Non-Commercial license is okay. It's pretty much a non-commercial share-alike license. I honestly think the Commercial license amounts to "Come talk to us or stick to DM's Guild." Even if you never expect to get near the $750,000 royalty threshold, I can't see why any commercial publisher would accept the terms of this license.


----------



## Reynard

Greg Benage said:


> I think the Non-Commercial license is okay. It's pretty much a non-commercial share-alike license. I honestly think the Commercial license amounts to "Come talk to us or stick to DM's Guild." Even if you never expect to get near the $750,000 royalty threshold, I can't see why any commercial publisher would accept the terms of this license.



Which tracks with the apparent intent: control D&D.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> A lot is being said about how 1.1 kills or attempts to kill 1.0a. That's being discussed everywhere.
> 
> Let's pretend 1.0a never existed and WotC is just making 1.1. No Paizos, no other large OGL games. WotC releasing 1.1 is the first opportunity to make D&D related content in the world.
> 
> What is in it for me?
> 
> That's not a flippant statement. Someone please explain (like I was 12 if that helps) what are the advantages and disadvantages of using it? Don't compare it to 1.0a, I just want to know what 1.1 alone would offer.
> 
> Anyone who can parse legalese, this would be appreciated.



IANAL, but from reading it.

1) Two licences, commercial and non-commercial.

2) Non-commercial only applies if you ONLY give away stuff for free. Any kind of paywall or anything at all except tip buckets like KoFi, you are commercial. Even barter or exchange makes it commercial (they specify!).

3) Non-commercial lets others use your work - any or all of - you can't protect any of it. So it's like you marked the entire document (including illustrations, maps, etc.) "Open Gaming Content" under OGL 1.0a.

4) Commercial to be clear, does not let you share anything with anyone, but WotC, so I know the focus isn't on restrictions, but I just need that to be clear. There is no "open" and no "sharing" with any but WotC with Commercial.

5) What can you sell under the OGL? Print and PDF/ePub/mobi essentially. That's it.

They specifically ban a bunch of stuff, but we're not talking about that. Assume if I didn't say it you can't.

6) However, they are clear you get to sell "self-merch" pretty freely. Physical goods particularly. So long as they're 100% about your IP and not D&D. So minis, letter-openers, dice, etc. - are all going to be fine so long as you don't but anything from the SRD on them, or anything WotC owns. They also don't count against the $750k. But the second something touches the SRD or even thinks about it, it does count.

7) You get a logo.

8) You get to use anything in the SRD 5.1.

No that's not a typo. Only _that _SRD. Not a future SRD. Not a past SRD. Just 5.1. Also you've got to mark everything in your book that is from the SRD. Examples they suggest are a different font, different colour text, or pages at the back listing out what's SRD and what's not. Yes I know we already had access to it under OGL 1.0a lol.

8) You get a number of requirements from WotC you have to fulfil that increase as you make more money per annum.

So what's in it for you? A logo, a single specific SRD you already have access to, and legal safe-harbour. And it all it cost you was the entire concept of Open Gaming. It's very hard to see why anyone would sign up to this, given the main reason people went OGL in the first place was the Open Gaming bit.

TLDR: The only actual carrot is a logo. Everything else carrot-flavoured was in OGL 1.0a.



Greg Benage said:


> I think the Non-Commercial license is okay. It's pretty much a non-commercial share-alike license.



I don't agree because it's basically IP-destroying, as everything it is auto-shared. You have no designation or control at all. I think licences like that make sense for software, but for creative stuff, they make no sense unless you're intending to never make any money from stuff related to that.


----------



## Cadence

You get to be on the hook for whatever legal expenses WotC wants you to be if anyone ever sues you over the product.  That seems exciting!


----------



## Greg Benage

Ruin Explorer said:


> I don't agree because it's basically IP-destroying, as everything it is auto-shared. You have no designation or control at all. I think licences like that make sense for software, but for creative stuff, they make no sense unless you're intending to never make any money from stuff related to that.



Yeah, that's how non-commercial share-alike licenses work. I guess this is a little worse than most because there's no attribution.


----------



## Remathilis

Greg Benage said:


> I think the Non-Commercial license is okay. It's pretty much a non-commercial share-alike license. I honestly think the Commercial license amounts to "Come talk to us or stick to DM's Guild." Even if you never expect to get near the $750,000 royalty threshold, I can't see why any commercial publisher would accept the terms of this license.



This is the best answer I've gotten. If I plan on making free content, the non-commercial license is fine, but if I want to make money, use DMs Guild. The commercial version is a trap.

It's not that I'm particularly excited about this, but I want to actually understand what is being offered without comparison to 1.0a which I know is a clearly superior deal. Assuming nothing changes, what are the options going forward.


----------



## Greg Benage

Remathilis said:


> This is the best answer I've gotten. If I plan on making free content, the non-commercial license is fine, but if I want to make money, use DMs Guild. The commercial version is a trap.
> 
> It's not that I'm particularly excited about this, but I want to actually understand what is being offered without comparison to 1.0a which I know is a clearly superior deal. Assuming nothing changes, what are the options going forward.



I'm not a lawyer so don't take my advice! That said, the non-commercial looks to me like a non-commercial share-alike license with no attribution. So other non-commercial publishers will be able to use your stuff without crediting you.


----------



## mamba

Reynard said:


> I am sure the compatibility logo is intended to be a boon.



intended, sure..


----------



## Remathilis

Ruin Explorer said:


> IANAL, but from reading it.
> 
> 1) Two licences, commercial and non-commercial.
> 
> 2) Non-commercial only applies if you ONLY give away stuff for free. Any kind of paywall or anything at all except tip buckets like KoFi, you are commercial. Even barter or exchange makes it commercial (they specify!).
> 
> 3) Non-commercial lets others use your work - any or all of - you can't protect any of it. So it's like you marked the entire document (including illustrations, maps, etc.) "Open Gaming Content" under OGL 1.0a.
> 
> 4) Commercial to be clear, does not let you share anything with anyone, but WotC, so I know the focus isn't on restrictions, but I just need that to be clear. There is no "open" and no "sharing" with any but WotC with Commercial.
> 
> 5) What can you sell under the OGL? Print and PDF/ePub/mobi essentially. That's it.
> 
> They specifically ban a bunch of stuff, but we're not talking about that. Assume if I didn't say it you can't.
> 
> 6) However, they are clear you get to sell "self-merch" pretty freely. Physical goods particularly. So long as they're 100% about your IP and not D&D. So minis, letter-openers, dice, etc. - are all going to be fine so long as you don't but anything from the SRD on them, or anything WotC owns. They also don't count against the $750k. But the second something touches the SRD or even thinks about it, it does count.
> 
> 7) You get a logo.
> 
> 8) You get to use anything in the SRD 5.1.
> 
> No that's not a typo. Only _that _SRD. Not a future SRD. Not a past SRD. Just 5.1. Also you've got to mark everything in your book that is from the SRD. Examples they suggest are a different font, different colour text, or pages at the back listing out what's SRD and what's not. Yes I know we already had access to it under OGL 1.0a lol.
> 
> 8) You get a number of requirements from WotC you have to fulfil that increase as you make more money per annum.
> 
> So what's in it for you? A logo, a single specific SRD you already have access to, and legal safe-harbour. And it all it cost you was the entire concept of Open Gaming. It's very hard to see why anyone would sign up to this, given the main reason people went OGL in the first place was the Open Gaming bit.
> 
> TLDR: The only actual carrot is a logo. Everything else carrot-flavoured was in OGL 1.0a.
> 
> 
> I don't agree because it's basically IP-destroying, as everything it is auto-shared. You have no designation or control at all. I think licences like that make sense for software, but for creative stuff, they make no sense unless you're intending to never make any money from stuff related to that.



That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.


----------



## Cadence

Greg Benage said:


> I'm not a lawyer so don't take my advice! That said, the non-commercial looks to me like a non-commercial share-alike license with no attribution. So other non-commercial publishers will be able to use your stuff without crediting you.




Does most share and share alike come with "we can tell you to stop distributing it at any time we want, and we still get to use it"?   (I honestly don't know).


----------



## Knight_Marshal

Don't forget the part where once your product is done, they can revoke your license, forbid you from making money off of it and sell it as their own at no cost to them.


----------



## aco175

As far as everyone knows today- this is not affecting the DMsGuild model in place?


----------



## Remathilis

Knight_Marshal said:


> Don't forget the part where once your product is done, they can revoke your license, forbid you from making money off of it and sell it as their own at no cost to them.



Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.


----------



## Cadence

Remathilis said:


> Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.



But not for the OGL 1.0a stuff in general, right?


----------



## Scribe

Umbran said:


> I mean, in the snarkiest way possible...
> 
> It gives you the right to publish stuff based on their rulesets, with the added features that they take a cut if you do well, can change the amount of cut with 30 days notice, and can revoke your right to publish at any time, while they retain the right to publish your stuff without paying you in perpetuity.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Remathilis said:


> Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.



Not quite, no, with OGC.

With OGC the licence was terminated if you failed to comply with the OGL 1.0a terms.

However there was no other provision for terminating it. You actually had to screw up. They couldn't change the term so you wanted to terminate either. Further, it wasn't just them who could use your OGC forever, it was anyone who was making stuff under the OGL 1.0a - which was actually a major benefit for the OGL 1.0a, because 3PPs could have 3PPs and it was super-easy.

DM's Guild I don't know, but that was always a spectacularly terrible deal.


----------



## mamba

Remathilis said:


> Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.



no, because whatever that is, is not using the OGL


----------



## TheSword

Umbran said:


> I mean, in the snarkiest way possible...
> 
> It gives you the right to publish stuff based on their rulesets, with the added features that they take a cut if you do well, can change the amount of cut with 30 days notice, and can revoke your right to publish at any time, while they retain the right to publish your stuff without paying you in perpetuity.



“If you do Well”? That’s the understatement of the year. The threshold is $750,000 dollars a year (not even aggregate - every year). Surely that means the majority of medium producers would be untouched financially and only the largest would be affected by questions of profitability. Surely even EN World only falls into this camp when there is a huge kickstart like Level Up.

Secondly my understanding of the right to use creators work is not to intentionally steal it but because Joe Bloggs in his basement sells 15 copies of something on Drive Thru RPG that happens to resemble something WOC put out 5 years later and then sues WOC. It costs WOC $10k to defend that suit from a nobody and there are thousands of people like this that they couldn’t dream of keeping an eye on. Even if it’s spurious and add a couple of those together it’s just not worth it.

Lastly the need to be able to revoke the rights to publish is necessary to prevent some idjits publishing Anschluss 5e. They can’t be getting into a debate over free speech if this happens.

Wizards are allowing people to use their own work for profit (up to a point). I would be amazed if this license would have been rejected with such antipathy if it had been offered up in the nineties!


----------



## Jack Daniel

Curiously, the dropped text doesn't explain _how_ you accept this license. No language addressing Acceptance, Consideration, or anything like that. Must've been in the accompanying contracts that needed signing.

But it's telling. So far, there's no apparent mechanism for opting in.


----------



## Reynard

Jack Daniel said:


> Curiously, the dropped text doesn't explain _how_ you accept this license. No language addressing Acceptance, Consideration, or anything like that. Must've been in the accompanying contracts that needed signing.
> 
> But it's telling. So far, there's no apparent mechanism for opting in.



You opt in by using the license, no?


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> Wizards are allowing people to use their own work for profit (up to a point). I would be amazed if this license would have been rejected with such antipathy if it had been offered up in the nineties!



Of course it wouldn't have been.

Because it would be seen as trying to improve the situation.

Whereas in this case it's like trying to drive a tank over the situation. That's not to say it would have been beloved in the '90s. Probably only a small number of companies would have signed on with it, especially as D&D's star wasn't exactly rising.


----------



## Jack Daniel

Reynard said:


> You opt in by using the license, no?




That's the rub, isn't it? OGL v1.0(a) had very clear language to that effect: you accept the license by using it, and you use it by publishing something that complies with the terms of the license (one of those terms being the inclusion of the text of OGL v1.0(a) somewhere within or attached to what you publish, along with a properly updated Section 15 and your own declarations of PI and OGC).

This purportedly "complete" text of OGL v1.1 doesn't clearly spell out anything with respect to the particulars of either accepting the license or using it.


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> Of course it wouldn't have been.
> 
> Because it would be seen as trying to improve the situation.
> 
> Whereas in this case it's like trying to drive a tank over the situation. That's not to say it would have been beloved in the '90s. Probably only a small number of companies would have signed on with it, especially as D&D's star wasn't exactly rising.



So it is a fair deal… it’s just not as beneficial for 3rd parties as they would like.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

TheSword said:


> So it is a fair deal… it’s just not as beneficial for 3rd parties as they would like.



No lol.

It is not a "fair deal".

That's not supported by logic, facts, rationality, or *linear time*.

That's your problem here. You're neither Doctor Who nor Inspector Spacetime. You have not in fact, travelled back to the 1990s to provide this wonderful licence to the unenlightened, Nirvana-listening, plaid-wearing denizens of that time.

Is is the year 2023 AD and there is only war an existing licencing agreement, which for 20+ years, has purported to be impossible to retract. It kind of looks, as we analyze this further, that actually maybe the OGL 1.0a really isn't possible to deauthorize, and WotC really just wishes it was. That maybe, if push comes to shove, Tenkar was right that it was opt-in. But the WotC comments in the agreement suggest otherwise, very clearly. So either it's opt-in and they're pretending otherwise, or we'll see them in court, I guess.

I mean, put it like this, if you got a first-gen Tesla Roadster (2008) and took it back to say, 1995, it would be amazing piece of technology, people would be delighted, amazed, fawning over you. But if you declared in 2023, that you were going to do an Over-the-Air update to all Teslas made since, bricking them, and in return, you'd be offering Tesla Roadsters (2008 model) to everyone as replacements, people would be outstandingly mad.

What your problem here really is, is linear time though. I'm sorry buddy but until the Tardis is working, we have to live in the present. What's a good deal in 2023 is different to what was a good deal in 1995. You know this.


----------



## Cadence

TheSword said:


> So it is a fair deal… it’s just not as beneficial for 3rd parties as they would like.



A fair deal for 3PPs making future things for 5.5?
Or a fair deal including 3PPs never making any future developments of the thigns they  spent decades developing based on 3.5 and 5?

(ninja'd by @Ruin Explorer )


----------



## OB1

TheSword said:


> “If you do Well”? That’s the understatement of the year. The threshold is $750,000 dollars a year (not even aggregate - every year). Surely that means the majority of medium producers would be untouched financially and only the largest would be affected by questions of profitability. Surely even EN World only falls into this camp when there is a huge kickstart like Level Up.
> 
> Secondly my understanding of the right to use creators work is not to intentionally steal it but because Joe Bloggs in his basement sells 15 copies of something on Drive Thru RPG that happens to resemble something WOC put out 5 years later and then sues WOC. It costs WOC $10k to defend that suit from a nobody and there are thousands of people like this that they couldn’t dream of keeping an eye on. Even if it’s spurious and add a couple of those together it’s just not worth it.
> 
> Lastly the need to be able to revoke the rights to publish is necessary to prevent some idjits publishing Anschluss 5e. They can’t be getting into a debate over free speech if this happens.
> 
> Wizards are allowing people to use their own work for profit (up to a point). I would be amazed if this license would have been rejected with such antipathy if it had been offered up in the nineties!



Your last sentence is such a good point.  It's the change from what was that is hard.  But I think a few things are true at the same time.

1.  Hasbro has legitimate reasons for needing to make the changes that they are to protect their business and livelihoods.  They have and are investing hundreds of millions of dollars to provide and improve a product consumed by millions of people.

2.  3PPs who have relied on 1.0 have legitimate reasons to be concerned with how these changes will affect their business and livelihoods.  They have invested money, time and effort to create products under the assumption that they would be able to continue to sell those products.

My hope is that the negotiations between Hasbro and the 3PPs are in good faith to ensure the mutual benefit for all parties.  With hindsight, a change like this was likely inevitable given the explosion of the hobby over the last 8 years. 

I would personally love to see the 1.0 OGL remain in place for existing SRDs, and having 1.1 only come into effect on new ones, but can also understand why that would be very hard for Hasbro to accept moving forward, as it would be a massive risk for their investment.  The courts could decided that 1.0 remains in effect for older SRDs, and if that happens, Hasbro will have to deal with it.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Cadence said:


> A fair deal for 3PPs making future things for 5.5?
> Or a fair deal including 3PPs never making any future developments of the thigns they  spent decades developing based on 3.5 and 5?
> 
> (ninja'd by @Ruin Explorer )



Not entirely ninja'd, that's a huge point - they're saying "Oh and you have to shut down anything based on older SRDs". Which is virtually everything. You can essentially only make stuff for or based on 5E.


OB1 said:


> Your last sentence is such a good point.



It would be a good point if it was the '90s.

In 2023, 30 years later. Not so much.


OB1 said:


> My hope is that the negotiations between Hasbro and the 3PPs are in good faith to ensure the mutual benefit for all parties.



The document is not a good faith document.

This is very clear for example in this sentence:

"Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called “Open Game Content”). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision."

That's not arguably true, and it's something WotC added in to "guide" people, but it doesn't match up with the legalese, and WotC knows perfectly well that it's a lie. You don't put stuff like that in a final document that's in good faith.


----------



## Scars Unseen

I'll let Jim Carrey field this one for me.  "Hey Jim, what does the new OGL let you do?  If you could use a movie quote to illustrate your point, that'd be great."


"Thanks, Jim"


----------



## TheSword

Ruin Explorer said:


> No lol.
> 
> It is not a "fair deal".
> 
> That's not supported by logic, facts, rationality, or *linear time*.
> 
> That's your problem here. You're neither Doctor Who nor Inspector Spacetime. You have not in fact, travelled back to the 1990s to provide this wonderful licence to the unenlightened, Nirvana-listening, plaid-wearing denizens of that time.
> 
> Is is the year 2023 AD and there is only war an existing licencing agreement, which for 20+ years, has purported to be impossible to retract. It kind of looks, as we analyze this further, that actually maybe the OGL 1.0a really isn't possible to deauthorize, and WotC really just wishes it was. That maybe, if push comes to shove, Tenkar was right that it was opt-in. But the WotC comments in the agreement suggest otherwise, very clearly. So either it's opt-in and they're pretending otherwise, or we'll see them in court, I guess.
> 
> I mean, put it like this, if you got a first-gen Tesla Roadster (2008) and took it back to say, 1995, it would be amazing piece of technology, people would be delighted, amazed, fawning over you. But if you declared in 2023, that you were going to do an Over-the-Air update to all Teslas made since, bricking them, and in return, you'd be offering Tesla Roadsters (2008 model) to everyone as replacements, people would be outstandingly mad.
> 
> What your problem here really is, is linear time though. I'm sorry buddy but until the Tardis is working, we have to live in the present. What's a good deal in 2023 is different to what was a good deal in 1995. You know this.



A fair deal - a benefit for an equitable reward - is a fair deal. The fact that you had a cushty deal before doesn’t make the new one unfair. It just makes it worse for you… which of course doesn’t mean it’s unfair.

It’s the change that hurts.


----------



## Reynard

TheSword said:


> A fair deal - a benefit for an equitable reward - is a fair deal. The fact that you had a cushty deal before doesn’t make the new one unfair. It just makes it worse for you… which of course doesn’t mean it’s unfair.
> 
> It’s the change that hurts.



"We can change the terms at any time" is not a fair deal.


----------



## Incenjucar

A "fair deal" that can turn wild success into abject failure and can be altered every 30 days to be even worse is not a "fair deal".

There are ways for WotC to be greedy without being harmful, but they have chosen to be harmful and to provide themselves with additional capacity for harm.


----------



## Greg Benage

Reynard said:


> "We can change the terms at any time" is not a fair deal.




That’s the thing: If everything else about it was great, you couldn’t put significant investment at stake under this term.


----------



## Incenjucar

You could, in theory, just make 3P stuff very, very expensive by default to cover the 750+K tax, if you knew for a fact that it wouldn't change. You'd struggle to sell as much, and the players would be impacted pretty heavily, but you'd at least be able to plan around it.

Edit: Heck, even if they could only change it annually, that would be something you could plan your year around.


----------



## Mecheon

TheSword said:


> A fair deal - a benefit for an equitable reward - is a fair deal. The fact that you had a cushty deal before doesn’t make the new one unfair. It just makes it worse for you… which of course doesn’t mean it’s unfair.
> 
> It’s the change that hurts.



"We can steal your content at any time and release it under our banner for our money alone, with absolutely no benefit to you (And can cut you completely out of publishing full stop with a 30 day notice). Oh, and if we're sued for using it (say, for mis-doing it), you cop all the legal fees, not us" is not, in any way, sense or term, remotely fair.


----------



## Henadic Theologian

Umbran said:


> I mean, in the snarkiest way possible...
> 
> It gives you the right to publish stuff based on their rulesets, with the added features that they take a cut if you do well, can change the amount of cut with 30 days notice, and can revoke your right to publish at any time, while they retain the right to publish your stuff without paying you in perpetuity.




 Worst deal ever.


----------



## TheSword

Greg Benage said:


> That’s the thing: If everything else about it was great, you couldn’t put significant investment at stake under this term.



It depends on what you mean by significant. Lots companies make investments over short term opportunities. It’s all about scale.

Don’t forget that WOTC wants to encourage people to develop new ideas, but it doesn’t want to effectively sponsor a major competitor - like Paizo.

Don’t set yourself up as competition, don’t do contentious stuff to aggravate the sponsor company or their customers, and don’t promote their competition. In most industries mine included those are basics to someone getting to play in someone’s back yard with their toys.


----------



## Greg K

Isn't the crowd source royalty on separate terms from print/pdf revenue without crowdsourcing?


----------



## Greg Benage

Greg K said:


> Isn't the crowd source royalty on separate terms from print/pdf revenue without crowdsourcing?




Sales through any platform other than KS is 25%, crowdfunded or not.


----------



## Charlaquin

Remathilis said:


> A lot is being said about how 1.1 kills or attempts to kill 1.0a. That's being discussed everywhere.
> 
> Let's pretend 1.0a never existed and WotC is just making 1.1. No Paizos, no other large OGL games. WotC releasing 1.1 is the first opportunity to make D&D related content in the world.
> 
> What is in it for me?
> 
> That's not a flippant statement. Someone please explain (like I was 12 if that helps) what are the advantages and disadvantages of using it? Don't compare it to 1.0a, I just want to know what 1.1 alone would offer.
> 
> Anyone who can parse legalese, this would be appreciated.



What it allows you to do is publish printed or printable media that includes content covered by the license (presumably anything in the eventual 1D&D SRD) alongside original content of your own. To do so, you would be required to register with D&D Beyond and submit personal information and a description of the content you intended to publish to WotC for approval. They would be able to, at any time or for any reason, tell you to change or take down that content, and you would have 30 days to comply. If you wanted to do any crowdfunding for it, it would have to be through Kickstarter. If you made enough money from this content, you would have to start reporting your revenue from that content to WotC annually, and potentially pay them royalties. They would be allowed to use any content you published under this agreement in any way they want, without having to give you any notice or pay you any money. Your agreement to these terms would be perpetual and irrevocable. If someome sued you for something related to that content and WotC thought you weren’t doing a good enough job defending yourself, they could get their lawyers to step in, and you’d have to pay their fees.

Also, WotC would be able to change any of these terms at any time for any reason, and by agreeing to publish under the above terms, you would have waved any right to participate in a class-action lawsuit against them.


----------



## Charlaquin

Cadence said:


> Does most share and share alike come with "we can tell you to stop distributing it at any time we want, and we still get to use it"?   (I honestly don't know).



For the record, it’s “noncommercial share alike,” not “share and share alike.” It’s a specific term for a specific kind of license. But, no, these types of licenses don’t typically allow the license holder to tell the licensee they can’t keep publishing the content.

What a noncommercial share alike license basically does is says anyone else can use, reproduce, or modify the licensed content however they want, as long as they include the same license (meaning anyone else can then use, reproduce, or modify _that_ content as long as they include it, and so on). Most noncommercial share alike licenses also require attribution, meaning you have to credit whoever wrote the content you’re using, reproducing, or modifying under the license, though this one doesn’t.


----------



## Charlaquin

Ruin Explorer said:


> 3PPs could have 3PPs



6PPs!


----------



## Charlaquin

TheSword said:


> “If you do Well”? That’s the understatement of the year. The threshold is $750,000 dollars a year (not even aggregate - every year). Surely that means the majority of medium producers would be untouched financially and only the largest would be affected by questions of profitability. Surely even EN World only falls into this camp when there is a huge kickstart like Level Up.
> 
> Secondly my understanding of the right to use creators work is not to intentionally steal it but because Joe Bloggs in his basement sells 15 copies of something on Drive Thru RPG that happens to resemble something WOC put out 5 years later and then sues WOC. It costs WOC $10k to defend that suit from a nobody and there are thousands of people like this that they couldn’t dream of keeping an eye on. Even if it’s spurious and add a couple of those together it’s just not worth it.
> 
> Lastly the need to be able to revoke the rights to publish is necessary to prevent some idjits publishing Anschluss 5e. They can’t be getting into a debate over free speech if this happens.
> 
> Wizards are allowing people to use their own work for profit (up to a point). I would be amazed if this license would have been rejected with such antipathy if it had been offered up in the nineties!



The license itself isn’t really the problem. You want to publish stuff for their game, you do it on their terms or not at all. Fair enough. I suspect fairly few creators would want to publish under these terms, but them’s the breaks.

The problem is that they’re trying at the same time to revoke a license they had previously offered, under the pretense of being irrevocable, on which a significant portion of the RPG industry has since been built and now relies.


----------



## Charlaquin

Jack Daniel said:


> Curiously, the dropped text doesn't explain _how_ you accept this license. No language addressing Acceptance, Consideration, or anything like that. Must've been in the accompanying contracts that needed signing.
> 
> But it's telling. So far, there's no apparent mechanism for opting in.



No, it does. It says you have to sign up for an account on D&D Beyond and submit a request to publish under this license, including personal info and a description of the content you intend to publish.


----------



## Charlaquin

OB1 said:


> Hasbro has legitimate reasons for needing to make the changes that they are to protect their business and livelihoods.



I’m pretty sure the billion dollar corporation’s business and livelihoods will be fine with or without this license.


----------



## bedir than

Ruin Explorer said:


> unenlightened, Nirvana-listening, plaid-wearing denizens of that time.



We were enlightened, everyone just called it angst and then we gave up


----------



## Ruin Explorer

Charlaquin said:


> The problem is that they’re trying at the same time to revoke a license they had previously offered, under the pretense of being irrevocable, on which a significant portion of the RPG industry has since been built and now relies.



I don't think it's fair to call it a pretense.

What WotC are doing, legally, with the deauthorization, is a novel technique. It was not something to be foreseen except by particularly canny lawyers (who you don't typically find as in-house counsel).

It took 20 years for anyone to even figure out a possible way to break it. And we don't even know if that's succeeded. I don't think it'll even go to court at this point. WotC have been asserting that it deauthorizes the previous licence, and say, in the comments, that it does, but does it? It seems more like you have to accept OGL 1.1 before that kicks in, and if that's true, this is opt-in, and the OGL 1.0a is not broken.

So it's kind of worse in a way, in that, they might not even be successful in their evil plan, they just want to present it as a fait accompli and have you sign it before you can think too hard. It is alleged by Griffon's Saddlebag that basically no-one did that though - which would be unsurprising.


----------



## blackflame

They (Wizards) have the power to do this and I can understand them doing it to some extent (IP protection is neccessary even against smaller creators as evidence of laxity in this regard could be used in the courts to defend infractions prepetrated by more formidable competitors-In other words you need to keep an eye on the little fish so that the sharks can't eat you alive). 

That being said, I would hope for their sake that Wizards wield this new weapon with a very light touch. Larger, more powerful companies than them have taken the goodwill of the fan community for granted and been harshly punished for it. Wizards benefits massively from small (and not so small) creator generated content. It's the best form of free advertsing you can get. If they start to trample all those seemingly insignificant people underfoot they may be opening the way for a competitor to step in and take over. 

D&D has become more successful and lucrative in recent times than many of us could have dreamed of. Let's hope Wizards do not forget that they didn't achieve this success all on their own-And that power can be fleeting-Particularly when partnered with hubris. Time will tell


----------



## kenada

Ruin Explorer said:


> What WotC are doing, legally, with the deauthorization, is a novel technique. It was not something to be foreseen except by particularly canny lawyers (who you don't typically find as in-house counsel).



I suggested the de-authorization approach back in December. I had guessed WotC would wait and only target the 6e SRD, so I was wrong about that, but if attacking the language of the original license was obvious to me as a non-lawyer, I can only assume it would be even more so to actual lawyers.


----------

