Was Open Content, then it's not?

[harpy]

So I'm working on an OGL project and I'm about 100 hours in and I've been drawing from other OGL sources along the way. Everything that I've been working with from other authors I made sure was OGL before considering introducing it to my project.

I hear that one of the OGL sources has a revision, so I head on over and buy the pdf to see what is new, what has been adjusted, etc. Then I notice in this new revised edition that the document is essentially locked up with an open content declaration that makes nearly everything in the revised edition closed content.

What is the status of the unrevised document? Is that still open content? The unrevised document in its entirety was declared open content by the author. Each document has a different copyright notice with different dates.

 

[afstanton]

Standard disclaimer on not being a lawyer, but it looks like section 4 - "4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." - means that the declared open content of the original pdf is under the OGL, irrevocably.

You may want someone else to chime in here, but consider - what if you had not had access to the revised pdf? Why would you suddenly lose access to what you could clearly see, in black and white, what you had legitimate access to?

 

[harpy]

Yeah, it's my overall impression that the unrevised document is still open content. When I finally publish my work I was going to be giving credit to the unrevised edition, so it all logically follows in how the license is worded.

I guess part of it is just hearing from others if this situation has come up before. Seeing the new declaration in the revised document was a real surprise.

 

[pawsplay]

Irrevocable. Just make sure you use the original open version.

 

[Roger]

What everyone else said, but also: it probably wouldn't hurt to drop a line to the publisher and explain what you're doing. I'd hazard a guess that there's a reasonably good chance they'd let you use the revised material in some fashion.


Cheers,
Roger

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, it's my overall impression that the unrevised document is still open content. When I finally publish my work I was going to be giving credit to the unrevised edition, so it all logically follows in how the license is worded.

I guess part of it is just hearing from others if this situation has come up before. Seeing the new declaration in the revised document was a real surprise.

Sure, I kept reading that 100% of the Freeport module trilogy text was originally all OGC but the 3.5 revised one I've got does not even open up the name Freeport or any of its city history. I don't own the original trilogy of modules but I could use the name freeport as OGC as well as the city description from my Second World pdf which has freeport from the original trilogy and is also, I believe, itself all OGC.

The old one is open and will always be so, the new one does not provide an OGL basis for using it but the old one is still valid.

If I wanted to do say a fourth module following up on the trilogy I'd track down the originals though to be certain for myself what is open and what is not from the modules.

Giving credit is a little tricky, remember there are license provisions on trademarks and compatibility declarations (been a while, I think those are the things you can't do without separate license.)

 

[pawsplay]

It is mandatory to give credit in the Copyright Declaration per the OGL and forbidden in all other ways without special permission.

 

[Nellisir]

I suspect I know what product you're talking about. The original version is still OGL. The publisher thought too many people were reusing the work without proper use of the OGL. I'm not sure rereleasing it with a locked-down license is really a fix, but I still have the original, so no loss to me.

 

[Nylanfs]

Once it's OGC it's irrevokable. Now a revised version can be made and additional info can be added and that material be closed content. But not the original info.

 

[Nellisir]

Once it's OGC it's irrevokable. Now a revised version can be made and additional info can be added and that material be closed content. But not the original info.

An individual can release their own material in both an OGC and non-OGC format. It's weird, but it can be done. A person (or company) is not obliged to follow the OGL when reusing their own property, since the OGL is an agreement between a content creator and a content user. If both are the same person, no outside agreement or license is necessary.