The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

I think it’s worth noting that Wotc can remove the 5.1 SRD from their sites. They can repost it under a different license (though they may need to name it something other than 5.1 SRD due to the clause in 5.1 SRD saying that license is granted solely through OGL 1.0), they can even ask everyone to stop using the old license.

What they cannot do is force anyone to stop using, distributing or producing the 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0 so long as they obtained that document with the OGL 1.0 in it. Even those that obtain from another licensee after WOTC remove it from their sites and servers.

 

[Alzrius]

The original GSL required you to stop publishing content under the OGL. That part was removed eventually, but the damage was done.

Notably, the GSL also required registration before you could use it, much like the OGL v1.1 is apparently going to require. I seem to recall that once WotC moved on from 4E, they stopped accepting new registrations for the GSL, so no one else who wants to make compatible products for 4E under it can anymore.

That might be a thing for anyone leery of the OGL v1.1 now; based on the language used, at some point WotC might now allow for people to make third-party materials for it, albeit probably after they (WotC) have moved on to yet another new edition of D&D.

 

[FrogReaver]

Pemerton would agree with your last point, which is of course the point that matters.

Pemerton is an Australian lawyer and he does know what he's talking about, it's just that the technical point he's been making about offer/acceptance in contract is basically irrelevant to the important point - your bolded text - and even misleading to some people.

I hope you are right but I came away with the impression that he would not agree with that.

 

[darjr]

Here is the poison pill version of the GSL.

Note there was a big thread here about the gsl

Wayback Machine

 

[Dausuul]

if he is agreeing with that, he does a really poor job of communicating it, and at that point I am not even sure what he is arguing about

He's delving into the details of why the 3E and 5E SRDs are effectively available forever. In essence -- if I understand him correctly -- it is because Wizards cannot withdraw permission from existing licensees, and those licensees can themselves license the SRDs to others.

So as long as there is somebody, somewhere, who is still publishing the 3E SRD under the terms of OGL 1.0, who can trace the "ancestry" of their license back to Wizards in the 3E era, anyone can get it from that person and be in compliance. The Internet being what it is, it's safe to say this will be the case for the foreseeable future.

But, in principle, if Wizards could somehow track down every licensee and convince them to voluntarily take down their copies of the 3E SRD, it could effectively "take back" the 3E SRD from the OGL. Even if you had a copy of the SRD text lying around, if you had never published that text as described in the OGL, you would not be a licensee, and there would be no one left to be your licensor.

 

[Reynard]

I'm still uncertain on the 1D&D SRD point: if they release it under the OGL 1.1, and OGL 1.1 is in fact a new version of the same OGL license, then is the 1D&D SRD also available for use via OLG 1.0 and 1.0a by virtue of Section 9?

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm still uncertain on the 1D&D SRD point: if they release it under the OGL 1.1, and OGL 1.1 is in fact a new version of the same OGL license, then is the 1D&D SRD also available for use via OLG 1.0 and 1.0a by virtue of Section 9?

It’s not clear cut, but most here find the arguments and principles in favor of that much more legally strong than the ones against.

*most of us are not lawyers either.

 

[Dausuul]

It’s not clear cut, but most here find the arguments and principles in favor of that much more legally strong than the ones against.

*most of us are not lawyers either.

@S'mon, however, is a lawyer and apparently the resident expert, so I'd go with his assessment... which seems to boil down to "Probably, depending on the judge, and how far Wizards goes to distinguish the new license from the old, so they would be well advised not to call it 'OGL 1.1.'"

Mind you, if I were a 3PP debating whether to try using the 1D&D SRD under OGL 1.0, I would not find this answer very reassuring. You want a little more certainty when your business is at stake. That in itself might be enough to keep anyone from making the attempt.

 

[mamba]

He's delving into the details of why the 3E and 5E SRDs are effectively available forever.

to me it very much sounds like he is arguing against this point. Since the license can be revoked (according to him, not in reality), the SRD could very much disappear. What would still be around is all the material based on it / the OGL 1.0, but it would be impossible to create any new material based on it.

But, in principle, if Wizards could somehow track down every licensee and convince them to voluntarily take down their copies of the 3E SRD, it could effectively "take back" the 3E SRD from the OGL. Even if you had a copy of the SRD text lying around, if you had never published that text as described in the OGL, you would not be a licensee, and there would be no one left to be your licensor.

As long as a copy of the 3e SRD with that license exists somewhere (i.e. I do not need to get it from anyone who is already a licensee or WotC themselves), I can accept the license and publish new material using the 3e SRD.

If no copy exists anywhere this becomes moot, simply because of a lack of access, not because this somehow means WotC managed to retract the license

 

[mamba]

I'm still uncertain on the 1D&D SRD point: if they release it under the OGL 1.1, and OGL 1.1 is in fact a new version of the same OGL license, then is the 1D&D SRD also available for use via OLG 1.0 and 1.0a by virtue of Section 9?

a plain reading of section 9 (and the quoted intent in an earlier post) agrees with this, who knows what courts may ultimately decide, but if WotC succeeds in arguing that this prevents 1DnD SRD to fall under 1.0 OGL that is despite the section and intent, not because of it

If they wanted to ensure it WotC should just call it something else rather than OGL 1.1, saves everyone a lot of trouble