The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[darjr]

wait on them for what ? collect their fee ?

why not? This sounds like the risk is that WotC goes bankrupt and D&D ends up being owned by no one, then how does this impact D&D ? As far as I can tell not at all, all it does is make it impossible to pay your fee if you make more than 750k off it.

You still legally owe it, there just is no one who can legally collect it.

There is a new process being put in place. Do you imagine, for even a second, that it doesn’t involve a back and forth with WotC?

Yes, the OGL WAS a response to the possibility of its owner going belly up, among other things. In fact it was the possible bankruptcy of TSR that prompted Ryan Dancy to think about it. Please read a little bit of OGL history.

 

[mamba]

There is not enough information to see how a Pathfinder could be prevented. But for Solasta, they said that one of the goals is that the license is only for printed and electronic books in a static format.

Agreed, and WotC also said that software is already not covered by it today, the OGL 1.1 just makes this clearer. Solasta is already not using the OGL today either

Solasta: Crown of the Magister

forums.solasta-game.com

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not sure, all you need to do is know which product had what income and used what version of the OGL. The finances can be merged without any issues as long as your bookkeeping is clean.

what about your overhead?

Lets say I own a lawn mowing service, a tree moving service and a painting business... and I have an office that is a single office for all three, what do I expense to what? what about my computer and printer? what about my time? That 1 truck I use for all three and the gas I use?

If you have 2 publishing companies you need 2 full sets of books and make sure you are not comingling.

 

[mamba]

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.

I am not saying it is a small thing, only that it does not prevent either a new Paizo (which can still happen) nor a new Solasta (which was already not covered by it the first time around and got a explicit license from WotC already)

 

[mamba]

See my response to @Malmuria in post #18.

yeah, do not really agree with that I am not seeing your argument preventing Paizo or the OSR. That's like saying you rather make zero money by not competing than possibly have to give some fee to WotC for using their SRD as a starting point, if you end up being hugely successful.

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.

Same as OGL 1.0a according to WotC, 1.1 just is clearer about this

 

[mamba]

There is a new process being put in place. Do you imagine, for even a second, that it doesn’t involve a back and forth with WotC?

I have no idea what that process will be, I assume they want to keep it simple to help with adoption of the OGL 1.1 however.

At a minimum you enter your revenue on their website (starting at 50k) and once the number you enter exceeds 750k they have a form on which you can transfer money to them, just like any webstore offers. They can even prefill the amount

Yes, the OGL WAS a response to the possibility of its owner going belly up, among other things. In fact it was the possible bankruptcy of TSR that prompted Ryan Dancy to think about it. Please read a little bit of OGL history.

I am aware, I just do not see how D&D would disappear under OGL 1.1 if WotC went bankrupt (and this ignores the fact that at least 5e would even then still be available under 1.0a)

 

[pemerton]

What I’m saying is that SRD 5.1 currently includes the OGL 1.0 which says it can be reproduced. They can’t put the genie back in the bottle. Anyone can get a copy of SRD 5.1 that uses the 1.0 OGL even if WOTC ceases to provide it because anyone can reproduce the 5.1 SRD with the 1.0 OGL, which then provides the new user a 1.0 OGL license to produce 5.1 SRD content. If the 5.1 SRD wasn’t reproducible under the current 1.0 license then they could do as you suggest but it is so I don’t see how they can. At least that’s my current line of thought.

My only point of disagreement with your first two sentences is that WotC could retract their offer to license the 5e SRD under the OGL v 1.0a. That would mean that any future person wanting to distribute OGC derived from the 5e SRD would need to do so via some other publisher who is already party to the OGL with WotC. Because that is not a very high hurdle to get over, in practical terms I think WotC has no reason to retract their offer.

they cannot do that, as the SRD is already available under OGL 1.0a and that cannot be revoked or ended

They could have something that is exclusive to the new SRD be available under OGL 1.1 only, but that sounds like a relatively small amount of stuff

You have misread my post, which did not use the word "only". @FrogReaver seemed to be suggesting that the only way to bring material from the existing SRD(s) under the OGL v 1.1 would be by ending the existing, perpetual, royalty-free licenses. I was disagreeing with that. (And of course it's always possible that I misinterpreted FrogReaver in the first place.)

In other words, as I said in my post, it may be that two publisher ecosystems are created, but they would likely be overlapping in the OGC that they contain.

And I am taking it as given that there will be material that WotC licenses via the OGL v 1.1 that is not currently licensed under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. What that volume of "stuff" would be I don't know.

Wrong direction of responsibility. Bob, through OGL 1.0 freely surrenders royalties from any future party. When Jane releases her supplement, she freely surrenders any royalties from any future party for the use of her open game content. What is new is that if a publisher meets a high revenue threshold they and they alone owe royalties to the owner of the ruleset.

Bob, through OGL v 1.0/1.0a, also obliges any future party to distribute all OGC royalty-free. But a party to the mooted OGL v 1.1 is violating that obligation. Of course that person (Jane) could surrender their royalty claims, but they can't surrender WotC's royalty claims. So it seems to me they can't pass on the rights to further parties that Bob, via the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, has obliged them to.

Who would have what remedy (gains-based damages, termination of the contract, etc) is a further question.

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.

I haven't seen the text of the OGL v 1.1. But I thought the press release said that publishers of OGC derived from the revised SRD will owe royalties (conditional on a certain revenue) to WotC. I assume it will be drafted so that if Jane distributes OGC that has been licensed to her under the licence, she imposes the same obligation on the sub-licensees. To me, that does not seem consistent with Jane's obligation under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a to distribute OGC royalty-free. That latter obligation is not confined to her own contributions to the OGC, at least on my reading of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

Could be!

If that's potentially the case then releasing material under OGL 1.1 would be effectively the same as releasing under OGL 1.0. I assume WoTC will eventually notice this.

I think we can be pretty confident that WotC's lawyers don't need to read ENworld for their advice and analysis!

I still don't see how WotC, in making a new offer of a licence to use their revised SRD under certain terms, can be bound by section 9 of an old offer.

But are you able to tell us anything sensible about the ways in which a revised SRD might be derivative of the existing SRD, and hence be already licensed under the existing OGL? That's what I'm curious about, but don't know enough to work out for myself.

 

[mamba]

what about your overhead?

Lets say I own a lawn mowing service, a tree moving service and a painting business... and I have an office that is a single office for all three, what do I expense to what? what about my computer and printer? what about my time? That 1 truck I use for all three and the gas I use?

Up to you, plenty of companies found a way to do this. If you have no good metric or it is too complicated to track, do it by revenue. Say the 1.0a material made 100k, the 1.1 material made 50k, so 2/3s of overhead get assigned to 1.0a and 1/3 to 1.1. Nothing new here...

 

[darjr]

I have no idea what that process will be, I assume they want to keep it simple to help with adoption of the OGL 1.1 however.

At a minimum you enter your revenue on their website (starting at 50k) and once the number you enter exceeds 750k they have a form on which you can transfer money to them, just like any webstore offers. They can even prefill the amount

I am aware, I just do not see how D&D would disappear under OGL 1.1 of WotC went bankrupt (and this ignores the fact that at least 5e would even then still be available under 1.0a)

It looks like they want to see what you are doing, which implies a review process. I realize this is speculative on what that process will entail.

For the second, if WotC went belly up and the OGL 1.1, as described is the law of the land, doesn’t seem to allow for anyone else to publish it, granted someone could do it for gifted, I suppose.

Ignoring for the sake of argument that the OGL 1.0a would be viable.

 

[mamba]

My only point of disagreement with your first two sentences is that WotC could retract their offer to license the 5e SRD under the OGL v 1.0a.

They cannot do that, simple as that

You have misread my post, which did not use the word "only".

I know, you said they would license the entire SRD under 1.1. They definitely will do that, but the 5.1 SRD is then still available under OGL 1.0a. So at most the new changes are covered by OGL 1.1 only. That is where my 'only' came from

In other words, as I said in my post, it may be that two publisher ecosystems are created, but they would likely be overlapping in the OGC that they contain.

that is a given, assuming the next SRD does not fully fall under OGL 1.0a as well (which given how 1.0a is phrased is at least a possibility)

And I am taking it as given that there will be material that WotC licenses via the OGL v 1.1 that is not currently licensed under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. What that volume of "stuff" would be I don't know.

No one knows, but given the similarities between 5e and 1D&D it cannot be all that much