The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[pemerton]

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

I'm not sure what the worry is here.

If the SRD were to be literally unowned, then no one would be violating anyone else's rights in publishing work derived from it.

If the SRD became owned by someone else, I don't know whether or not that would extinguish the licences that WotC had granted, as I don't know how US contract law works in that respect. If it did, then that would happen whatever the particular terms of the OGL. If it didn't, then people publishing under the OGL 1.1 would owe their royalties to the new owner of the SRD. (At least in the simple sort of scenario I've painted.)

 

[pemerton]

They cannot do that, simple as that

Of course they can. An offerer can retract an offer at any time, unless they have entered into a contractual promise not to do so, or are estopped. WotC has not contracted with anyone that I've heard of to not retract their offer; nor are they estopped in respect of an offer to anyone, that I'm aware of.

The licence is not revocable once entered into. But that's different from ceasing to make the offer.

 

[darjr]

I'm not sure what the worry is here.

If the SRD were to be literally unowned, then no one would be violating anyone else's rights in publishing work derived from it.

If the SRD became owned by someone else, I don't know whether or not that would extinguish the licences that WotC had granted, as I don't know how US contract law works in that respect. If it did, then that would happen whatever the particular terms of the OGL. If it didn't, then people publishing under the OGL 1.1 would owe their royalties to the new owner of the SRD. (At least in the simple sort of scenario I've painted.)

It wouldn’t be unowned. The doomsday scenario was D&D being owned in pieces by banks.

Yes, it’s not likely, but that wasn’t my point.

My point was this OGL1.1 seems it will be very different at a core level and this being one of those differences.

 

[darjr]

I gotta add that in a vacuum this license as described seems extremely generous.

Even in the current circumstances I think it seems generous, really.

But open license have become the norm and frankly I think that’s best.

 

[mamba]

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.

No idea, as I wrote the first time around to me it seems like the only consequence is that whatever fee you owed WotC under it now goes uncollected as WotC no longer exists and no one acquired the rights do D&D.

 

[kenada]

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.

Again, it’s speculation. It’s possible they would have tried to do their own thing, but I remain skeptical they would have been willing to put themselves at the mercy of WotC again after what happened with Dungeon and Dragon.

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

No, not the same. The 1.0a OGL is not limited to just print and PDF. WotC is using “clarification” as a euphemism to say they want to limit how people can use OGL content. It’s like when a service you use announces a new phase on their journey when the reality is they got acquired, and the service is either shutting down or will be in the future.

 

[pemerton]

It wouldn’t be unowned. The doomsday scenario was D&D being owned in pieces by banks.

Yes, it’s not likely, but that wasn’t my point.

My point was this OGL1.1 seems it will be very different at a core level and this being one of those differences.

But suppose that a bank ends up owning the SRD, in a way that doesn't extinguish the licence, then you'd just pay them your royalties.

I guess I'm not seeing how the royalties clause changes the capacity of the licence to "save D&D".

 

[kenada]

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.

If the OGL 1.1 will require revenue reporting, then it seems like a fair assumption that WotC be allowed to audit licensors for accuracy. Thankfully, their people came from Microsoft not Oracle, so they probably won’t be (as) aggressive about it.

 

[mamba]

Of course they can.

No, they absolutely cannot, under no circumstances ever

"the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license"

An offerer can retract an offer at any time

no, the license does not allow for this

The licence is not revocable once entered into. But that's different from ceasing to make the offer.

They cannot stop making the offer either, they offered it once and they have no way of going back on that, unless they come up with time travel. Once something has been released, it stays released.

This is not a license both sides need to agree to, so WotC has no way of preventing anyone in the future from using that license for the stuff they published under it.

 

[pemerton]

The 1.0a OGL is not limited to just print and PDF. WotC is using “clarification” as a euphemism to say they want to limit how people can use OGL content. It’s like when a service you use announces a new phase on their journey when the reality is they got acquired, and the service is either shutting down or will be in the future.

I was just rereading the d20 trademark licence, which incorporated the d20 system guide, which in turn precludes the production of "interactive game" software. The fact that an exclusion of that sort was expressly incorporated in that licence reinforces your plain-meaning reading of the OGL. I don't see how the OGL is supposed to not license the use of OGC in software contexts. (Though I'm prepared to accept that complying with the obligations to make OGC available to other licensees might impose certain restriction on how OGC is incorporated into software.)