The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

You are basically arguing that not all of WotC’s D&D products are open, I agree, but I never argued that.

Cutting to the chase.

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that the SRD 5.1 is not a completely open product. It's mostly there, but not completely. As an example, it mentions mind flayer's but you cannot even mention them in your product.

I am saying the OGC (Open Game Content) that WotC made available in the SRD is under an open license (the OGL 1.0a)

So reframing your statement here - you want to know if the 'Open Game Content' is open. IMO it's not, because you must agree in the license to not use any Product Identity, you also must agree to not advertise using the name of any contributor without written permission.

This means you can't even make factual advertising statements like, 'Frogreaver's Adventures based on WOTC's 5e D&D.'

The things in the license you must agree like this are fairly small potatoes, but they are terms that something completely open wouldn't have. If I had to rate it I would say SRD 5.1 is 95% open.

 

[mamba]

Cutting to the chase.

That's not what I am saying at all. I'm saying that the SRD 5.1 is not a completely open product. It's mostly there, but not completely. As an example, it mentions mind flayer's but you cannot even mention them in your product.

yes, because they are not licensed under the OGL. As I said in my first reply already, this does not mean the OGL is not open, it only means they are not covered by it

So reframing your statement here - you want to know if the 'Open Game Content' is open. IMO it's not, because you must agree in the license to not use any Product Identity, you also must agree to not advertise using the name of any contributor without written permission.

well, you are wrong and clearly do not properly distinguish between SRD, OGC and OGL.

The rest is just more you not distinguishing SRD, OGC and OGL. Yes, not 100% of the SRD is also OGC, that is how you arrive at your ‘the SRD is 95% open’ which again tells us nothing at all about whether the OGL is an open license, or rather it tells us that it is but only covers 95% of the SRD… that part being the OGC

Could there be fewer restrictions and the OGL remains open, sure, but none of the restrictions it contains make it not an open license.

As to you not being able to use the name of someone without permission, that makes a lot of sense. Why should you be able to eg advertise your adventure as ‘with contributions by Gary Gygax’ only because you base it on the OGL and he contributed to the content of the OGC but did not write a single word of your content.

 

[pemerton]

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.

I don’t think this is correct. WotC have not promised that their existing SRD will be licensed only under the OGL v 1.0a.

The statement you have pointed to is a reservation by WotC of its rights.

Clause 2 of the OGL states that the OGL itself is the Entirety of the licence.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don’t think this is correct. WotC have not promised that their existing SRD will be licensed only under the OGL v 1.0a.

I mean it says paraphrased 'Use of SRD 5.1 is Granted solely through the OGL 1.0a.' I'm no lawyer but doesn't that mean SRD 5.1 content will only be licensed under OGL 1.0a?

The statement you have pointed to is a reservation by WotC of its rights.

Maybe you can elaborate here?

Clause 2 of the OGL states that the OGL itself is the Entirety of the licence.

Clause 2 also states: "...Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice..."

 

[FrogReaver]

Could there be fewer restrictions and the OGL remains open, sure, but none of the restrictions it contains make it not an open license.

Maybe you don't understand what Open means?

 

[pemerton]

I mean it says paraphrased 'Use of SRD 5.1 is Granted solely through the OGL 1.0a.' I'm no lawyer but doesn't that mean SRD 5.1 content will only be licensed under OGL 1.0a?


Maybe you can elaborate here?


Clause 2 also states: "...Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice..."

I'm looking at this version - https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf - which likewise begins

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.0 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.​

That statement, as best I can tell, is WotC's statement of offer to license the SRD under the terms of the OGL. They are reserving their rights in the sense of stating that they grant the right to use their content solely pursuant to the OGL v 1.0a.

This statement is not itself a component of, or a term of, the OGL. It doesn't confer rights on anyone. The rights that WotC is reserving are not rights that need to be granted - they are its rights in its IP.

 

[Hussar]

that does not mean the license is not open, only that they did not license this part under it

Any 3PP can do the exact same thing too. You specify what part of your product is covered by the open license and what part is not

That is not true.

You absolutely cannot declare open content to be closed, for example. I can’t copy your ogc and then declare it closed.

We saw tons of broken open content in the early years of the ogl where people would basically try to wall off their entire works by making it virtually impossible to separate the ogc from ip.

 

[mamba]

Maybe you don't understand what Open means?

maybe I do, it does not mean public domain. Any open license comes with restrictions by its very nature. None of the ones the OGL 1.0 has make it not an open license.

So let’s cut to the chase again, show me the clause in the OGL that makes it not an open license and what condition of an open license definition it violates.

 

[mamba]

That is not true.

You absolutely cannot declare open content to be closed, for example. I can’t copy your ogc and then declare it closed.

agreed, when I wrote their product I meant their original content in their product

 

[Hussar]

maybe I do, it does not mean public domain. Any open license comes with restrictions by its very nature. None of the ones the OGL 1.0 has make it not an open license.

So let’s cut to the chase again, show me the clause in the OGL that makes it not an open license and what condition of an open license definition it violates.

Can you show the same about the new OGL?