The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Bedrockgames]

Really? What prevents Pathfinder or the OSR here? As far as I can tell nothing at all does, at most they end up having to share a bit of revenue with WotC.

No idea if Solasta (which I just looked up and know nothing about) is even using the OGL. According to WotC they are not covered by it even today however.

I am still trying to understand all of this, but it sounds like there is more to it than just that concern. But having to share revenue data and revenue isn't a small thing. That gives WOTC a lot of information about the hobby and about competitors. If you are a company making lots of revenue with a particular line, and you have to share that data with WOTC, it could mean WOTC sees that information and decides to launch its own line along the same idea. Plus you are just giving a rival information about your company you might not want to share for a host of reasons. But people like Estar seem to be expressing concerns about the license that are more about its impact on what you can make.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Disagree, D&D, as well as other RPGs, are part of our common cultural heritage. It been 50 years we should not have to pay rent for it. Especially to a nonperson corporation that never was involved in its creation.

With Dancey getting the D20 SRD out as open content under the OGL we didn't have to wait until at least 2070 to use some of it without someone paying rent. My position we should keep pushing that for subsequent editions as well. We got something that was good enough for 5e and we should put for the same and more for OneD&D.

Hasbro will continue to make their money as did with 5e. 5e experienced it's greatest growth AFTER the release of the 5e SRD.

If Wizards introduces problems then the hobby has the tools to fix it. It happened with 4th edition and it will happen with OneD&D if there are problems. But it would be nice to have to do what Pazio had to do and just get on with creating, sharing, and publishing fun and neat stuff. The way these things goes it is easier to act on the objections now rather than later when more work has been done on the license.

The first sentence is a position against the modern IP and copyright laws and probably beyond the scope of this forum

 

[kenada]

Really? What prevents Pathfinder or the OSR here? As far as I can tell nothing at all does, at most they end up having to share a bit of revenue with WotC.

See my response to @Malmuria in post #18.

No idea if Solasta (which I just looked up and know nothing about) is even using the OGL. According to WotC they are not covered by it even today however.

The proposed OGL 1.1 is only for print (and the digital equivalent like PDFs). It does not allow games, digital tools, or other things of that nature.

 

[Lanefan]

I am still trying to understand all of this, but it sounds like there is more to it than just that concern. But having to share revenue data and revenue isn't a small thing. That gives WOTC a lot of information about the hobby and about competitors. If you are a company making lots of revenue with a particular line, and you have to share that data with WOTC, it could mean WOTC sees that information and decides to launch its own line along the same idea. Plus you are just giving a rival information about your company you might not want to share for a host of reasons. But people like Estar seem to be expressing concerns about the license that are more about its impact on what you can make.

Is there anything yet that says just how detailed that financial info has to be, that a company would have to forward to WotC?

For example, if a publisher only had to send in something annually that said (in more legal-ish terms) something like "By accepted accounting practices the OGL-related revenue of Company X was $823,464 in year [20xx]; please find enclosed a royalty cheque for [whatever amount the royalty is on the $73,464 excess]." then WotC wouldn't get to see which in particular of Company X's products were selling well and which weren't; only that the company had taken in that much money in that year. I can't see how that's so bad other than it might force publishers to add a layer to their accounting to sort out OGL-related and non-OGL-related revenue.

But if WotC insists on a full breakdown on how and from what product(s) that OGL-related revenue was achieved, that's too much. Way too much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Is there anything yet that says just how detailed that financial info has to be, that a company would have to forward to WotC?

It think it just said OGL-related revenue annually if you make more than 50,000

For example, if a publisher only had to send in something annually that said (in more legal-ish terms) something like "By accepted accounting practices the OGL-related revenue of Company X was $823,464 in year [20xx]; please find enclosed a royalty cheque for [whatever amount the royalty is on the $73,464 excess]." then WotC wouldn't get to see which in particular of Company X's products were selling well and which weren't; only that the company had taken in that much money in that year. I can't see how that's so bad other than it might force publishers to add a layer to their accounting to sort out OGL-related and non-OGL-related revenue.

But if WotC insists on a full breakdown on how and from what product(s) that OGL-related revenue was achieved, that's too much. Way too much.

I am assuming we will learn more specifics when they publish the new OGL version. But it is both royalty (if you make over 750,000 and revenue reporting (if you make more than 50k). I imagine for some companies that might be easier or harder for WOTC to deduce where the money is coming from if they only have to submit a single number with no break down of any further information. A lot of companies build their OGL business around one line for example. But we won't really know for sure until we see what the revenue reporting requirements are.

Again I can't speak for other publishers, and I am not doing any OGL stuff under the new license, but I absolutely would not share any of my revenue information with another company (especially one controlling a license of this nature). That might just be me. But I would be pretty concerned about it. And if I were making more than 750K, I would think twice about an arrangement where I may have to send them royalties.

 

[MoonSong]

Paizo wouldn’t agree to the GSL. Why would they agree to a license that requires revenue reporting and royalties paid to WotC indefinitely? For the OSR, the point of retroclones was to create games that were unencumbered, so people could use them and create content for them. This version of the OGL would keep them encumbered, defeating the point. I suppose they could be released as non-open games (like Kevin Crawford does for his), but I think the hobby would be much worse off if things had gone that route.

Why would Paizo agree to a license that could mean having to pay royalties for PF money?

 

[mamba]

Just sticking to this bit of the analysis, I think that @estar is correct to flag the possibility that OGL 1.1 may not be a "version" of OGL 1.0/1.0a, as it apparently will not permit someone who becomes a party to it to distribute OGC royalty-free.

Where is that coming from ? Of course it allows the royalty free distribution of OGC. If you as the licensee decide not to distribute your work royalty free and make more than 750k with it, then WotC does want a cut however.

As to it not being a version of the OGL, that would maybe be worth considering if this license were not called OGL 1.1. As is, it is that can be dismissed outright.

 

[codo]

Why would Paizo agree to a license that could mean having to pay royalties for PF money?

It's not like the original OGL is going away. I don't know what inducements WotC will decide to offer to use the new license, I'm guessing the use of more game content and campaign settings, as well as access to WotCs distribution channels. Whatever they are, If a company or game designer decide they are not worth it, they can always use the original OGL.

 

[mamba]

It means content licensed under the OGL 1.1 can not be used with content licensed under the OGL 1.0a. So OneD&D publishers making a product using content from OGL 1.1 under the proposed changes would not have my permission per the OGL to use Blackmarsh.

Are you sure ? Section 9 sounds like they would be able to use 1.1. if they so chose.

"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."

You distributed your OGC under 1.0a, they use it with 1.1 instead...

 

[occam]

Paizo wouldn’t agree to the GSL. Why would they agree to a license that requires revenue reporting and royalties paid to WotC indefinitely?

You had said:

If the 3e OGL had these terms, there would be no Pathfinder

But now you're assuming they would've had some other choice. If the original OGL had included royalty terms, and upon the release of 4e Paizo faced a choice of the GSL (to continue publishing official D&D content) or the royalty-encumbered OGL, they might very well have forged ahead with a 3.x-based Pathfinder anyway, royalties or no (depending on royalty terms, anticipated profit margins, etc.). Retrospectively arguing that royalty requirements would've prevented the appearance of Pathfinder (or the OSR) is speculation, and the inclusion of royalty terms in OGL 1.1 doesn't necessarily preclude its use in generating future business ventures.

Of course, OGL 1.0 still exists, and is royalty-free, providing another option.