1.0 vs. 1.0a, any legal wizards can answer this?

[GreyLord]

So, this may have been asked before, but perhaps some of you legal wizards might be able to answer this yourselves.

My memory is not as great as it used to be.

I seem to recall that there was a 1.0 OGL that came out with 3e or around the time for 3e?

Isn't that the original OGL, even if it can no longer be found online (almost all of my books have their stuff based on OGL 1.0a making it almost impossible to find one based on 1.0. They DO refer to a 1.0 in section 15 of the OGLa that they put down under copyright notice. It seems hard to find, BUT the Mutants and Masterminds core rulebook I have does NOT refer to the 1.0a and only the Open Game License. It looks like it may actually only be based upon the 1.0 license, which, if true, gives us the text of the 1.0 license).

Now, as per section 9, one can use ANY AUTHORIZED VERSION OF THIS LICENSE TO COPY, MODIFY, AND DISTRIBUTE ANY OPEN GAME CONTENT ORIGINALLY DISTRIBUTED UNDER ANY VERSION OF THIS LICENSE.

With that in mind, from what I understand, the new OGL is ONLY deauthorizing 1.0a, at least that's the chatter I've heard.

IF IT ONLY deauthorizes 1.0a does that mean that it does NOT deauthorize 1.0?

If it does not deauthorize 1.0 would that indicate that, as per section 9, anyone using 1.0a could revert to using 1.0 and continue to release their information as 1.0a is the one deauthorized, not 1.0?

 

[Enrahim2]

There was some supplements released under 1.0. For instance I have the parts of the freeport trilogy under that license. I didn't go word for word over it and comparing with 1.0a, but they are extremely similar.

The leaked dokument referenced 1.0(a) which I gather is most reasonably interpreted as 1.0 and 1.0a. (There are no website I am aware of designated 1.0(a) )

 

[rcade]

OGL 1.0 is here:

Open Game License v0.1 Simplified

When I compared it to OGL 1.0a with Diffchecker.Com, the only difference I found was in Section 7 where the reference to "any Trademark" changed to "any Trademark or Registered Trademark."

 

[Morrus]

With that in mind, from what I understand, the new OGL is ONLY deauthorizing 1.0a, at least that's the chatter I've heard.

IF IT ONLY deauthorizes 1.0a does that mean that it does NOT deauthorize 1.0?

Yes, but easily rectifiable. I wouldn't plan on counting on that staying the case.

 

[GreyLord]

There was some supplements released under 1.0. For instance I have the parts of the freeport trilogy under that license. I didn't go word for word over it and comparing with 1.0a, but they are extremely similar.

The leaked dokument referenced 1.0(a) which I gather is most reasonably interpreted as 1.0 and 1.0a. (There are no website I am aware of designated 1.0(a) )

So, if we get REALLY technical and go by EXACT wording, if 1.0(a) doesn't exist in that specific form, just like de-authorize instead of revoke, can that be utilized in the same way in the play on words.

Or, if utilized as a different wording for 1.0a, as it does not specify 1.0 exactly, is there wiggle room there?

If we are going to be pedantic and play word games like someone at WotC apparently wants to do?

 

[Morrus]

If we are going to be pedantic and play word games like someone at WotC apparently wants to do?

They can change the OGL v1.1. at-will. You'd make the book, they'd change it. You can't win word games against somebody who can change the rules on a whim.

 

[delericho]

I seem to recall that there was a 1.0 OGL that came out with 3e or around the time for 3e?

Yes. There has been a little discussion of this - the main difference is that the exact status of WotC themselves changed (from LLC to Inc, or something), and there may have been a word or two changed. But, technically 1.0 remains in force and can be used, for now.

With that in mind, from what I understand, the new OGL is ONLY deauthorizing 1.0a, at least that's the chatter I've heard.

If OGL 1.1/2.0 de-authorizes 1.0a that has no real effect - as noted, an opt-in license can't affect anyone who doesn't choose to use it. However at some point, probably when they eventually release the thing, WotC will make a statement claiming the right to de-authorize. At that point, I would be extremely surprised if they didn't phrase it either as "all older versions are no longer authorized" or "this is the only version that is authorized".

But even if they don't, it doesn't really help - if they are able to de-authorize any version of the license, no version of the license can be relied upon, as it can disappear at any time.

 

[Umbran]

Or, if utilized as a different wording for 1.0a, as it does not specify 1.0 exactly, is there wiggle room there?

Ask yourself - would you trust to that wiggle room in a court of law when your own money is on the line, against a billion-dollar corporation?

If not, then no, there isn't wiggle room there.

 

[Alzrius]

Yes, but easily rectifiable. I wouldn't plan on counting on that staying the case.

Reviewing the leaked OGL v1.1 document, it actually says that the "OGL v1.0(a)" is what's revoked.

The fact that it puts parenthesis around the "a" part, which aren't found in the designations of the previous OGL iterations, looks to me like an indicator that their notice of revocation is meant to apply to both the OGL v1.0 and the OGL v1.0a simultaneously.

But I'm no lawyer, so maybe I'm reading too much into it.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Reviewing the leaked OGL v1.1 document, it actually says that the "OGL v1.0(a)" is what's revoked.

The fact that it puts parenthesis around the "a" part, which aren't found in the designations of the previous OGL iterations, looks to me like an indicator that their notice of revocation is meant to apply to both the OGL v1.0 and the OGL v1.0a simultaneously.

But I'm no lawyer, so maybe I'm reading too much into it.

I think you are reading too much into it.

If your intention is to get rid of them both, and it "costs" you another sentence to do so, you do that with simple and unambiguous clarity, specificity and finality.