AbdulAlhazred
Legend
They could create an OGL with almost any terms whatsoever and then use content under that version, as spelled out in existing versions of the license. They can certainly release new content (and mixed new/old in such a way that it would be almost impossible to separate them) exclusively under a new OGL which lacks an "or any other version" clause. Yes, it is likely I can ignore that license and content for my own purposes, but there's still little reason for me to give my stuff away free to WotC to do virtually whatever they wish with it. lol.I don't think this is an accurate description of the legal state of affairs. WotC has no power to change the terms of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. It has a power to promulgate variations, and each licensee has the power to choose which of the variants they will use when they reproduce, copy or modify OGC.
I want a regime under which I never have to worry, and apparently that can never be as long as it is rooted in things owned/controlled by WotC! YOU SAY I have nothing to worry about, but gosh that is comforting! lol. Not that I think you are crazy, but if I could operate under a license regime which I am entirely confident in the stewardship of, then I will do so in a heartbeat, all things being equal.In practical terms, what difference does it make?
There's been no actual example, from the first promulgation of the OGL up to now, of this ownership by WotC actually making a difference to anything. What hypothetical(s) are people envisaging?
Perhaps for clarity I need to add: some people seem to think the current furore has some connection, in legal terms, to section 9. But I've read just about every post i this thread, and I don't think I've seen any of the lawyer contributors try to make out such an argument. In my view, those who connect what is going on at the moment to section 9 are just wrong.
Sure, anyone using any license can decide that they were having a brain fart the day they attached that license to their stuff and try to claw back the rights they've given up! There are, however, differing quality levels of licenses and some which are actually backed by organizations and interests who can effectively weigh in when you are threatened. Again, this heavily favors a CC type licensing scheme, again all other things being equal. Section 9 IS however the mechanism by which WotC would try to argue its escape from the license, so it IS a weakness. ORC could improve on that, but IMHO its a pointless effort, CC is better. CC certainly seems better in the case of anyone who doesn't have a lot of stake in Product Identity, as the ORC/OGL only advantage is the "don't use my PI" clause. I'd still have good old copyright, etc. though, which has served every book publisher in existence quite well for a couple centuries.My reply to this is the same as to @AbdulAlhazred. Given that no issue (including the current one) has ever arisen in relation ship to WotC's ownership of the copyright in the OGL, or in relation to its authority under section 9 to promulgate variants, what practical difference does it make that under ORC a third party not-for-profit enjoys that right and that power?
This isn't true.
Nothing stops Paizo, in the future, insisting that its licensees under ORC agree to a new licence on less favourable terms, just as WotC is doing now. The issue of who owns the copyright to ORC has no relevance to that. (I mean, maybe it will preclude Paizo calling its proposed new licence ORC v 2 - but that doesn't seem to me to be of any great significance.)