The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Xyxox]

I see the OGL 1.1 as basically an Amazon license. If they like your idea, you're done. They will take it and Amazon Collecti... er... One D&D it. They already do that with anything you save to D&D Beyond as fan content, this license just let's them do it more easily with third party commercial IP.

 

[Maxperson]

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?

We already know that they've granted special licenses to companies, so clearly they believe that they can grant use outside of the OGL. I'm going to bet that they have multiple good lawyers, so they are most likely correct in their belief.

 

[mamba]

I'm going to bet that they have multiple good lawyers, so they are most likely correct in their belief.

no idea, but I am willing to bet that proving them wrong will be cost prohibitive

 

[Incenjucar]

I see the OGL 1.1 as basically an Amazon license. If they like your idea, you're done. They will take it and Amazon Collecti... er... One D&D it. They already do that with anything you save to D&D Beyond as fan content, this license just let's them do it more easily with third party commercial IP.

WotC doesn't have enough output for this to be a significant risk.

 

[Maxperson]

no idea, but I am willing to bet that proving them wrong will be cost prohibitive

True enough!

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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).

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

His one is positive until proven otherwise, yours is negative.
He speaks about toxicity. 4e got totally unwaranted negativity from people who probably have not even read the books.

So no. You are not doing the same.

 

[Morrus]

I see the OGL 1.1 as basically an Amazon license. If they like your idea, you're done. They will take it and Amazon Collecti... er... One D&D it. They already do that with anything you save to D&D Beyond as fan content, this license just let's them do it more easily with third party commercial IP.

The current OGL already lets them do that. That's how it works -- the license goes both ways. You get to use WotCs OGC, they (and everybody else) get to use yours. To my knowledge they've never actually done that, though.

 

[Alzrius]

The current OGL already lets them do that. That's how it works -- the license goes both ways. You get to use WotCs OGC, they (and everybody else) get to use yours. To my knowledge they've never actually done that, though.

In point of fact, they used two monsters from Sword & Sorcery Studios' Creature Collection in the 3E Monster Manual II.

 

[FrogReaver]

We already know that they've granted special licenses to companies, so clearly they believe that they can grant use outside of the OGL. I'm going to bet that they have multiple good lawyers, so they are most likely correct in their belief.

You aren’t understanding what I’m saying.

They own the copyright to all the material. They can place it together in different products however they want. So yes, you will see orcs under many licenses. I’m saying you will not see the SRD 5.1 itself under different licenses and to my knowledge it never has been issued under another license.

*Note reading some of the comments from people more tied in the legal profession I could be wrong about this part as well, but I’m not suggesting that orcs can only be released under 1 license.

Make more sense?

 

[FrogReaver]

His one is positive until proven otherwise, yours is negative.
He speaks about toxicity. 4e got totally unwaranted negativity from people who probably have not even read the books.

So no. You are not doing the same.

IMO most people don’t need to read a book to know it’s not what they are looking for. Reviews and a few example paragraphs usually do the trick.