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

Reply to comment by ToxiClay in eli5 Why is the company that makes D&D games so controversial right now? by Old_Door_18

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