Tallywacka t1_j676idr wrote on January 28, 2023 at 4:58 AM

There’s some good YouTube videos of it but essentially they said it’s under monetized and put out an intentionally vague and very self serving change to the TOS that effectively lets them take and market any ideas as well as a share of profits from any related content (above an amount?).

The games long and large success seems widely attributed to the fact that the business model was so open and accepting to fan content and this current iteration appears to be the exact opposite.

That’s a non D&D players understanding of where things are at now, correct as needed

ToxiClay t1_j67990h wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:25 AM

> effectively lets them take and market any ideas

The purpose of the back-licensing was to ensure that WOTC couldn't get bogged down with nuisance lawsuits if they happened to independently come up with something similar to what a licensee did. It was never anything so nefarious as "ha ha we 0wn all j00r content now."

Tallywacka t1_j679qk9 wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:30 AM

So I guess the proper question to ask is, would be the scenario I suggest be possible under that ToS?

I did note that it seemed to be quite vague, intentionally or even unintentionally

ToxiClay t1_j67a4at wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:34 AM

I'm not actually sure. You're right, it's kinda vague.

The relevant part of the OGL 1.1 draft document is as follows:

> X. OTHER PRODUCTS. Sometimes, great minds think alike. We can’t and won’t cancel products out of fear that they’d be > seen as “similar to” Licensed Works. Therefore: > > A. You agree that nothing prohibits Us from developing, distributing, selling, or promoting something that is > substantially similar to a Licensed Work. > > B. You own the new and original content You create. You agree to give Us a nonexclusive, perpetual, irrevocable, > worldwide, sub-licensable, royalty-free license to use that content for any purpose.

Nothing specifically says they will act as you suggest, but neither does it specifically prohibit them. So I guess someone's conclusion would depend on how they feel about WOTC as a company, in this case.

Tallywacka t1_j67aibg wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:38 AM

Doesn’t really inspire confidence after proceeding to be getting called under monetized, hopefully enough pushback they overhaul the draft

ToxiClay t1_j67bukx wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:53 AM

Oh, they abandoned the OGL entirely after the backlash, and published the entire 5.1 reference document under the incredibly lax Creative Commons license.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1439-ogl-1-0a-creative-commons

Tallywacka t1_j67c859 wrote on January 28, 2023 at 5:57 AM

That’s good, still a little bit of a bad taste for a good community but at least they backed off. I didn’t see much for any follow ups to the initial story but not really my channels. Thanks for the update