The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

My take is this: by calling the new licence an OGL v 1.1, WotC may incorporate by reference section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. Which would then have the consequence that you point to.

isn’t that already the case simply by calling it OGL 1.1 even if that version excluded section 9?

The section is still in 1.0a and in 1.0a it states that if something is released under 1.1 you can use that under 1.0a as well.

“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.”

 

[Voadam]

often the side with more power and money can make the law say what they want it to say. Until a conflict arises that needs to be adjudicated in court we won’t know exactly what the OGL update allows or doesn’t allow wotc to do.

Legally Odd: OGL Section 9

Recently, Wizards of the Coast announced that they would be releasing version 1.1 of their famous Open Gaming License, the OGL . What does t...

blog.trilemma.com

I think to go with what that blog terms the retroactive interpretation, you have to interpret the older 1.0 and 1.0a OGLs as not authorized versions of the license. I think there is a strong argument that the existing OGLs are authorized versions of the OGL. I think the straightforward argument is that WotC authorized them. These are not unauthorized licenses that someone without authority to do so put out there.

Section 9 explicitly says you can use any authorized version of the license to distribute OGC originally distributed under any version of the license.

This is a license term of the OGL granting rights to the licensees.

So if WotC makes a 1.1 and distributes OGC under it, a 1.0 or 1.0a OGL licensee can use any authorized version of the OGL to distribute that OGC. To force anyone to use only the latest revision of the OGL that latest revision would have to be the only authorized version of the license.

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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."

 

[Art Waring]

often the side with more power and money can make the law say what they want it to say. Until a conflict arises that needs to be adjudicated in court we won’t know exactly what the OGL update allows or doesn’t allow wotc to do.

Legally Odd: OGL Section 9

Recently, Wizards of the Coast announced that they would be releasing version 1.1 of their famous Open Gaming License, the OGL . What does t...

blog.trilemma.com

The blog post is misinterpreting the OGL, IMO, because it is interpreting the 1.1 OGL as an "update" to the OGL rather than a replacement like the 4e GSL.

I think people are getting hung on the "OGL" and "open" words in the title of the 1.1 OGL, but it is anything but open, and its function is completely separate from a true open license. Its wording is much closer to the closed off GSL.

When people are framing the new 1.1 OGL as an update, that simply isn't true. Its a replacement, and one that requires people to buy into the idea that its just an update, rather than the end of open content for dnd.

 

[FrogReaver]

isn’t that already the case simply by calling it OGL 1.1 even if that version excluded section 9?

The section is still in 1.0a and in 1.0a it states that if something is released under 1.1 you can use that under 1.0a as well.

“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.”

IMO. If section 9 was removed from OGL 1.1 then one would not have permission to release the new SRD under the old OGLs. It doesn’t matter what the old licenses say as you aren’t licensed for that content under them.

 

[FrogReaver]

The blog post is misinterpreting the OGL, IMO, because it is interpreting the 1.1 OGL as an "update" to the OGL rather than a replacement like the 4e GSL.

I think people are getting hung on the "OGL" and "open" words in the title of the 1.1 OGL, but it is anything but open, and its function is completely separate from a true open license. Its wording is much closer to the closed off GSL.

When people are framing the new 1.1 OGL as an update, that simply isn't true. It’s a replacement, and one that requires people to buy into the idea that it’s just an update, rather than the end of open content for dnd.

Legally im not sure any of that matters. Legally what constitutes a version vs a new product? I don’t think it’s cut and dried and to my limited knowledge it’s never been tried. I would think at a minimum there needs to be substantial similarities - it would seem there are. Then does it matter if WOTC wishes to treat something as new product or as a new version? I think under most circumstances they would have the power to decide its designation - though I’m sure some exceptions can be carved out as well. Possibly if there designation was deemed misleading enough and the designation had real downstream impact for customers or licensees.

 

[mamba]

The blog post is misinterpreting the OGL, IMO, because it is interpreting the 1.1 OGL as an "update" to the OGL rather than a replacement like the 4e GSL.

it is a newer version of the OGL, so exactly what section 9 is talking about.

If it were meant to be a separate license like the GSL, then they should call it something other than OGL + higher version number

 

[Art Waring]

Legally im not sure any of that matters. Legally what constitutes a version vs a new product? I don’t think it’s cut and dried and to my limited knowledge it’s never been tried. I would think at a minimum there needs to be substantial similarities - it would seem there are. Then does it matter if WOTC wishes to treat something as new product or as a new version? I think under most circumstances they would have the power to decide its designation - though I’m sure some exceptions can be carved out as well.

There is a distinct difference between versions of a license and new products. I don't really get what you are saying here.

 

[mamba]

IMO. If section 9 was removed from OGL 1.1 then one would not have permission to release the new SRD under the old OGLs. It doesn’t matter what the old licenses say as you aren’t licensed for that content under them.

EDIT: you are right missed the little word ‘previous’ in the FAQ

 

[Art Waring]

it is a newer version of the OGL, so exactly what section 9 is talking about.

If it were meant to be a separate license like the GSL, then they should call it something other than OGL + higher version number

Except you are taking it at face value, but just think about this for a second...

Given the past history of the 4e GSL, and the failure of 4th edition, do you really think they would outright state that this is a new restrictive GSL license? They are using the framing of the old OGL, combined with the GSL wording, to create a new restrictive license, it doesn't matter that the word "open" is in the title because it is the opposite of an open license.

 

[FrogReaver]

Except you are taking it at face value, but just think about this for a second...

Given the past history of the 4e GSL, and the failure of 4th edition, do you really think they would outright state that this is a new restrictive GSL license? They are using the framing of the old OGL, combined with the GSL wording, to create a new restrictive license, it doesn't matter that the word "open" is in the title because it is the opposite of an open license.

If section 9 is included and they call it a new version then one would be safe to release OGC 1.1 content under OGL 1.0 as far as I can tell.

However if they call it a new license instead of a new version it’s not as clear if legally that designation would hold up.