Thread by @archon

If the leaked material sent to @TheRulesLawyer1 is accurate, then WOTC is intent on destroying both the #OSR and #Pathfinder. If you care about #OpenDnD watch his video and get ready to get angry.

The terms themselves are as pernicious as you can imagine, demanding you sign over a license to all of your IP irrevocably while allowing them to terminate your license virtually at will.

But, what's worse, the leaked language suggests that they intend to revoke the existing OGL by asserting that OGL 1.0 is no longer an authorized license. Can they do that? Lawyers differ in their opinion.

But it's worth noting that the Open Gaming Foundation, which WOTC's Ryan Dancey helped create, specifically said that an open game license is one that can never be closed off in the manner that WOTC is allegedly attempting to do.
opengamingfoundation.org/licenses.html

So if Hasbro's attorneys attempt to claim that they can revoke the OGL and they win, then that means the entire 20-year history of the open game movement will turn out to be based on a lie.

Can they win? Sadly in law it often comes down to who has the deepest pockets, and no one's are deeper than Hasbro's. Only a tiny handful of companies could oppose them in court.

Wizards has a number of strategies available to it, which I won't go into here, because I'm not going to give assistance to the dark side. The strategies for our side will entirely hinge on the text of clause 9 of the OGL.

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

If I were arguing this case, I'd point out that Sec 9 says "you may use any authorized version" not "you may only use authorized versions". The clear meaning of the language is that if open content was published on version x, but x.1 has more favorable terms, you *may* use x.1.

In other words, OGL 1.0 *permits* us to use any newly-authorized license with content published under any old license; but it does not *require* us to use a new license with content published under the old license, which remains available under the old license.

I would support that language with the abundant text, from WOTC's own employee Ryan Dancey, showing his clear intent to create an open license and his stress that the D&D IP was trademark focused not copyright focused under the OGL.

All of this, of course, turns on the leak being legitimate. For now, we have to wait and see. But if you're a third-party D&D publisher, prepare for the worst.