The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

By the letter of the OGF statement you quoted the current OGL is not an open license.

Please elaborate

 

[mamba]

Not every material using game rules is permitted to be freely copied, modified and distributed. There is an entire section that defines what is Open Gaming Content and what is not.

so you are confusing what part is the license with what part is the content covered under the license.

The license is open, not all D&D is covered under the license so not all of D&D is open.

It certainly won't be as dire as the OP here has claimed, calling for a revolution against Wizards of the Coast. It certainly won't be a massive money maker for Wizards either, no matter what they think. There's pennies at stake, considering less than two dozen companies qualify for the most limited version of 1.1

the problem with the new license is not the amount WotC may be able to make from it. I agree from WotC's perspective there are pennies at stake, which makes this all the more foolish, because there is more than pennies at risk imo. The risk / reward is simply not in favor of doing this.

As to how dire it is, the best comparison we have is still 4e / the GSL, check how well that went for 3PP support. I think it will be different this time, simply because it is much easier to ignore the OGL 1.1 than it was to do with the GSL. The threat they pose is essentially the same however (to be verified once we have the final terms).

 

[pemerton]

Since they grant the right to use OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a then wouldn't licensing OGC via a completely new license (not just an updated version) mean they are no longer granting rights to use the OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a?

Yes. Like I set up a shop in the front of my house, and say that I will only sell for cash. Then, later on, I decide to sell also for cheques made out to "cash".

It's their statement of offer, not a term of the contract. The contract is constituted by the OGL, which does not forbid someone offering a different licence in respect of their work. (Of course that alternative licence couldn't purport to be exclusive, if the work has also licensed under the OGL (and hence) on an irrevocable basis.)

Section 2 of the OGL mandates a statement similar to that one be added to all OGC. Doesn't that make it a term of the OGL?

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

The SRD does not contain a notice literally in that form. It contains the statement of permission to use solely under the OGL; then three paragraphs down there is a long list of items that "are designated Product Identity, as defined in Section 1(e) of the Open Game License Version 1.0a, and are subject to the conditions set forth in Section 7 of the OGL, and are not Open Content". Then there is a statement that "All of the rest of the SRD5 is Open Game Content as described in Section 1(d) of the License."

Of course, WotC do not need a literal section 2 statement, because all of their material is OGC only in virtue of their voluntarily declaring it as such, by making the offer to the world to license it under the OGL.

Whereas when someone else publishes a work that includes OGC authored by WotC or some other party, they are granted a licence to use that OGC only in virtue of the operation of section 4 of the OGL. The section 2 statement made by that publisher ensures that they expressly state the terms on which they are licensed to use the OGC and to sub-license its use.

If that publisher has authored their own material in respect of which no one else has a copyright claim (ie it is not derivative of another's work), then my view is that nothing would stop them from simultaneously licensing that material pursuant to another agreement, should they wish to do so.

An example:

Suppose I write up a set of RPG rules for determining when encounters happen in a fantasy city. And suppose, for the sake of argument, that no one else has any sort of copyright claim in the rules that I write up (ie they are not derivative of Gygax's Appendix C City/Town encounter matrix, nor anyone else's random encounter tables, nor Vincent Baker's Oracles in In A Wicked Age, nor the Events tables in Torchbearer, etc).

I could publish my rules without need a licence from anyone. Having done so, I could also licence you to include the rules in your publication.

Assuming that my licence granted to you did not include a binding promise that it be exclusive, I could also publish my rules, including stat blocks from WotC's SRD, pursuant to the OGL, and if I wanted to I could declare my rules OGC. (I don't think I would be obliged to do that, although I will admit I find the definition of Open Gaming Content in the OGL a bit hard to parse.)

At that point you would still have your licence, but others who take up my offer under the OGL would also have licences. And they would be authorised to sub-license, although (as per section 2) only pursuant to the OGL.

In the scenario I've just set out, I don't see that I am breaking my obligations to any licensee.

 

[pemerton]

I think you are over thinking it. this statement is attached to the SRD as a means to indicate that the SRD itself is NOT a document being released into the public domain. The SRD is only licensed by way of the OGL 1.0a -- not creative commons or anything else. In order to use it, you must use the OGL 1.0a. That's all. From there, the actual stipulations of OGL 1.0a take hold.

For what it's worth, I spoke to an IP lawyer who I know through work, and he affirmed that in his judgment, that notice was just a boilerplate statement making it clear that the 5.1 SRD wasn't any sort of public domain work, rather than specifying that it was only meant to be used with a particular iteration of the OGL.

Yes. I posted this already upthread.

 

[pemerton]

Did he happen to weigh in on whether "OGL 1.1" would actually be an new version of OGL 1.0a, or if it would have to be a new license given the changes?

As I've already posted, no one can know this without seeing the text of the proposed licence.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes. I posted this already upthread.

So did I.

 

[bedir than]

Please elaborate

The quote from the OGF says all of the game must be available via the license. In the original OGL that is untrue.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily consider a website that hasn't updated in a decade the authority on what is or isn't an OGL considering they stopped updating as more and more companies have released variants.

 

[Hussar]

I get it that you have taken on the role of the WotC shill or employee for whatever reason, but maybe be less annoying about it and do not ask me things I already told you in other posts, like your question is some kind of gotcha

It appears that we are talking past one another so I will bow out.

As far as being a “shill” I just remember quite clearly watching people endlessly beat the drum about 4e based on nothing but speculation that still gets repeated to this day.

I will always oppose baseless speculation that is endlessly negative. It’s the poison that makes fandom such a toxic cesspool.

 

[mamba]

It appears that we are talking past one another so I will bow out.

no need to disappear, but your one line gotcha question was something I had answered maybe 5 hours before in another reply to you. Also, you know very well that the license has not been released so I could not point you to a section (that is the gotcha part).

As far as being a “shill” I just remember quite clearly watching people endlessly beat the drum about 4e based on nothing but speculation that still gets repeated to this day.

I will always oppose baseless speculation that is endlessly negative. It’s the poison that makes fandom such a toxic cesspool.

I get the sentiment, believe it or not but there are instances where I am doing the same thing about this Mostly about what it means to OGL 1.0 however, OGL 1.1 can go screw itself. From where I stand you are also endlessly beating back with equally unfounded speculation however, just in the opposite direction

 

[mamba]

The quote from the OGF says all of the game must be available via the license. In the original OGL that is untrue.

It doesn't say 'all'. Here is the quote again

"1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future."

both of these are fulfilled by the current OGL, i.e. true for all material licensed under it.

Also, I wouldn't necessarily consider a website that hasn't updated in a decade the authority on what is or isn't an OGL considering they stopped updating as more and more companies have released variants.

they aren't but this is not the only definition that essentially agrees that the OGL is an open license (and that a fee makes it not-open)