The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

Talk to people writing for closed licenses about their struggles. OGL 1.1 is not a closed license, no matter how much people arguing on the internet insist it is.

several definitions of an open license require that there is no fee associated with the use...

 

[bedir than]

several definitions of an open license require that there is no fee associated with the use...

but not all. And 99% won't have a fee at all.

OGL 1.1 is much closer to an open license than the standard closed agreements

 

[mamba]

but not all. And 99% won't have a fee at all.

no, not all, but to me saying ‘it is open no matter what some people on the internet say’ is then disingenuous

OGL 1.1 is much closer to an open license than the standard closed agreements

yes, but that does not mean it is actually open

 

[Hussar]

several definitions of an open license require that there is no fee associated with the use...

Several definitions of an open license also don't allow you to wall off content the way the OGL does. The OGL has never been a completely open license in the sense that people mean open licenses.

And, again, remember, that the OGL only applies to those who are not producing on DM's guild. Someone mentioned people like @M.T. Black in this thread or another. Thing is, AFAIK, @M.T. Black has only produced on DM's Guild. He's never produced any OGL that I'm aware of and he's certainly a lot better known for his DM's Guild material.

So, it is important to keep perspective here. Yes, this will impact people like En World publishing or Kobold. Absolutely. And, if I was them, I would absolutely understand the concern. But, people have been producing a LOT of D&D content outside of the OGL for quite a while now. Thousands and thousands of titles on DM's Guild. I mean, heck, all that Dragonlance stuff that they just whacked up on DM's Guild just shifted from OGL to non-OGL in a flash.

So, it's not like people won't have avenues available to them if they don't like the new OGL.

 

[Maxperson]

• This seems to mean that content produced under the OGL 1.0/1.0a license CANNOT be updated to a OGL 1.1 license as doing so breaks the original license. Also, derivative works for such products CANNOT be updated to OGL 1.1 as they would require a royalty free OGL license.

I don't think this is correct. The agreement under 1.0/1.0a is essentially a contract. If both sides agree to a new contract, they are free to do so. WotC puts out a new contract offer with OGL 1.1 and if the person accepts, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to make an updated version under their new agreement.

 

[bedir than]

no, not all, but to me saying ‘it is open no matter what some people on the internet say’ is then disingenuous

yes, but that does not mean it is actually open

There are stipulations in OGL 1.0 that mean it is not truly open.
If we want to act in a binary, the original D&D OGL isn't open.

 

[pemerton]

D&D is a culture and a movement and a worldview, far more than it is a product

I think this is a contentious claim. As far as I can tell, D&D is predominantly a series of products that people purchase from WotC.

There are endless threads on this site alone about the Amazon sales rankings of D&D and PF books. If D&D was not predominantly a product, those threads would make no sense.

As far as D&D being a "movement", the only "movement" I've experienced in relation to D&D was waves of unrelenting hostility the last time I was predominantly a D&D gamer, ie the period around 2009-16.

D&D is not a story. it isn't even a setting. it is a framework. It does not conform the IP licensing the same way Star Wars or Halo does. You can protect The Forgotten Realms the way you can protect the MCU, but not "D&D".

I'm not sure what the "framework" is for D&D. You mean rolling a d20 for some bits of action resolution and results determination (mostly attacks and saves), and rolling various other dice for damage? My favourite implementation of those methods - 4e D&D - is regarded with something between negativity and scorn by most people who (to me) seem to think of themselves as guardians of the essence of D&D.

In any event, to me - particularly in the ways I've engaged with it over the past 6 or so years - D&D is predominantly a collection of settings and setting elements, and a certain idea about how adventure occurs in those settings and setting elements. I've used those setting elements - mostly the geography and history of the world of Greyhawk, but other ones too - in multiple games using multiple rule sets. (Torchbearer, Burning Wheel, Cortex+ Heroic and AD&D being the main ones in that time period.)

the OGL was not designed to protect WotC's good name or even shelter D&D. it was designed to protect D&D from being destroyed by corporate greed. It's goal was to make sure that should poor management or actual malfeasance lead to the death of D&D as a brand, the GAME itself would live on.

<snip>

The core idea of the OGL was pretty simple: , and the OGL was there to make sure than no one could kill it by making bad business decisions because there would always be someone able to take the essense of D&D (the SRD) and rebuild it.

<snip>

You want to know what a "free" D&D looks like: it looks like the OSR. I am not an OSR devotee. i own maybe 3 OSR games. But they way that community has made D&D of a certain era their own, and shared ideas and created a community is EXACTLY what modern D&D needs.

Putting to one side that the OSR is not based around the SRD as the essence of D&D, but rather around a series of earlier rulesets published in the 70s and early 80s, if the point of the OGL is what you say it is then that point has been realised, and whatever WotC does in the future won't change or undo it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think this is correct. The agreement under 1.0/1.0a is essentially a contract. If both sides agree to a new contract, they are free to do so. WotC puts out a new contract offer with OGL 1.1 and if the person accepts, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to make an updated version under their new agreement.

The SRD 5.1 starts out with -

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 ("SRD5") is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.

Section 2 of the OGL 1.0a even mandates that a notice indicating the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License."

Thus, I believe that not even WOTC could legally release SRD 5.1 out under a different license - as SRD 5.1 would then no longer be solely granted through the OGL 1.0a as it states and while normally they could rescind an offer at any time, couple it with WOTC mandating it licensees reproduce their OGL 1.0a offer on every copy and distribution being done and I think there's a strong case here that they created an offer they couldn't rescind IMO. However, since they are the copyright holder they could create an SRD 5.2 with exactly the same content as SRD 5.1 and a brand new license - of course if WOTC insists that OGL 1.1 is a new version of the OGL then section 9 of OGL 1.0a kicks in and SRD 5.1 can be offered via OGL 1.1 but that wasn't the scenario the post you quoted was contemplating.

TLDR: I agree there are workaround to get the same 'content' released under OGL 1.0a and any other license.

 

[mamba]

Several definitions of an open license also don't allow you to wall off content the way the OGL does. The OGL has never been a completely open license in the sense that people mean open licenses.

not sure about that, but even if, that then is an argument in my favor / it not being open, no matter what some people on the internet say

And, again, remember, that the OGL only applies to those who are not producing on DM's guild. Someone mentioned people like @M.T. Black in this thread or another. Thing is, AFAIK, @M.T. Black has only produced on DM's Guild.

that is not true, he is not just on DMsGuild, not sure whether he uses the OGL however - not that it should matter in the context I used him in, which was about figuring out how much money he is making in a year. I don’t see the OGL being used making any difference in how easy it would be, it obviously would make a difference in how much he would have to report

people have been producing a LOT of D&D content outside of the OGL for quite a while now. Thousands and thousands of titles on DM's Guild. I mean, heck, all that Dragonlance stuff that they just whacked up on DM's Guild just shifted from OGL to non-OGL in a flash.

sure, they moved to a more restrictive license that will pay higher fees, WotC is certainly not unhappy about that

 

[mamba]

There are stipulations in OGL 1.0 that mean it is not truly open.
If we want to act in a binary, the original D&D OGL isn't open.

which ones do you consider that to be ?