Forking the OGL

[Khairn]

After reading this thread, and the opinion's of some publishers I really respect, and in response to the OP ... yes, the new 4E "OGL" does looked forked to me as well.

I'm no legal expert, but it does look that by not creating any type of continuity between the original OGL and whatever the new 4E version will be called, and by apparently establishing tighter controls over what kind of product would be eligible to be included under the new OGL, WotC has effectively stifled at least one avenue of new 3rd party publications. Namely the 4E versions of 3E supplements.

It will be very interesting to see over time how this all turns out.

 

[dmccoy1693]

Legally speaking, this is impossible.

Here's one way that it is legally possible:

3.5 is released under the Open Gaming Licence 1.0A
4.0 is released under the Opened Gaming Licence 1.0

Section 9 of 1.0A does not apply to 4.0 since it is under a different licence entirely.

(note: this is just speculation, not fact)

EDIT: They could even put a section in the 4.0 licence that says, "You cannot use this licence with any version of the Open Gaming Licence."

 

[Dragonblade]

Legally speaking, this is impossible.

Practically speaking, it is possible (if only because it will be largely self-enforcing).

I still don't think that's what we'll see. We'll see a new OGL with sufficient enticements to encourage its use over prior versions.

Not if that clause is under version 2.0 of the license. Remember that version 1.0 says you can ignore newer versions. So you can ignore OGL 2.0 but then can't use the 4e content. All WotC has to do is create a new category of open content that is identified and allowed only if you accept the terms of the OGL 2.0. You are free to still use version 1.0, but can't use 4e content if you do.

Legally it works just fine.

 

[see]

Looking through the exact text of Section 9 . . .

If they call the 4e SRD "Open Game Content" and the 4e license an "Open Game License", then Section 9 of the 1.0a OGL is relevant, and all 4e Open Game Content can be republished under the OGL 1.0a.

If they call the 4e license an "Open Game License" and do not call the 4e SRD "Open Game Content", then the OGL 1.0a allows existing Open Game Content to be re-released under the 4e OGL, but does not allow the 4e SRD to be released under the OGL 1.0a.

If they do not call the 4e license an "Open Game License", then OGL 1.0a Open Game Content and 4e SRD material cannot be mixed, except by the copyright holders on any specific OGC.

My bet is that 4e will see an Open Game License, but that the 4e SRD will not be named Open Game Content. Thus allowing old Open Game Content to be updated for 4e, but without allowing 4e SRD material to be released under the OGL 1.0a.

 

[EnglishScribe]

<snip>

The original OGL is perpetual, however -- and there's nothing stopping someone from publishing Fantasy material that could easily be used with 4th Edition, as long as they don't use any specific-to-4e rules, and as long as they don't claim compatibility with D&D, which will be an exclusive pervue of the new license.

Copyright law protects the wording of the rules, not the concepts behind the rules. We are free to rewrite the 4E concepts, and even to reuse 4E terms (unless they trademark the term) under the existing OGL - providing that the text is not plagiarised

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

argghh...yuo know what i meant.

I can't determine what you meant because-- with all due respect-- you don't know what you are talking about.

They arent' building 4e off of the 3e ogl they are building it "from scratch" as such they can write a whole new license and section x of a license that has nothign to do with 4th edition wouldn't apply to 4th edition in any fashion.

They are not building 4e "from scratch." They are building 4e from 3.5, and 3.5 is Open. This means that 4e must be Open. And while WOTC is under no obligation to release any kind of SRD, it will be possible to derive 4e compatible Open Content.

Not if that clause is under version 2.0 of the license. Remember that version 1.0 says you can ignore newer versions. So you can ignore OGL 2.0 but then can't use the 4e content. All WotC has to do is create a new category of open content that is identified and allowed only if you accept the terms of the OGL 2.0. You are free to still use version 1.0, but can't use 4e content if you do.

You have obviously not read Section 9. It states that you can use ANY Open Content released under ANY version of the OGL under the terms of ANY version of the OGL. It's really very clear.

My bet is that 4e will see an Open Game License, but that the 4e SRD will not be named Open Game Content. Thus allowing old Open Game Content to be updated for 4e, but without allowing 4e SRD material to be released under the OGL 1.0a.

This analysis ignores the viral nature of Open Content. Going this route would require WOTC to argue that 4e is not Open despite being obviously derived from existing Open Content. Not only do I think they won't do that, it still doesn't address the fact that it is possible to derive 4e compatible content from existing 3.5 Open Content.

WOTC is not oblivious to these considerations. Which is why I suppose the new OGL will contain enticements to use it-- benefits and restrictions-- instead of reverting to an older version of the OGL. A publisher could use an older version of the OGL, for example, but he would then lose access to the indications of compatibility allowed by the new version.

Probably pretty simple and not a lot of cause for concern.

 

[Dragonblade]

You have obviously not read Section 9. It states that you can use ANY Open Content released under ANY version of the OGL under the terms of ANY version of the OGL. It's really very clear.

You are correct, I haven't read it recently. I was simply extrapolating on how it might work if WotC does actually release content under the OGL but still wants strictures on how 4e content is used.

If it truly is as you say it is, then I don't see how WotC can control their content. I believe Scott Rouse previously said there would no longer be a d20 STL. But based on their press release, they will have controls on their content.

You can't have controls with the OGL. Therefore, I assume they must be using a different license for 4e altogether.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You are correct, I haven't read it recently. I was simply extrapolating on how it might work if WotC does actually release content under the OGL but still wants strictures on how 4e content is used.

If it truly is as you say it is, then I don't see how WotC can control their content. I believe Scott Rouse previously said there would no longer be a d20 STL. But based on their press release, they will have controls on their content.

You can't have controls with the OGL. Therefore, I assume they must be using a different license for 4e altogether.

Well, as I have repeated, what they can control is 3rd party product that indicates compatibility with their valued brand.

The current OGL does not allow explicit indications of compatibility. It sounds like the new version will allow you to state, for example, "Compatible with 4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons!" on the cover. That's a big deal! In exchange for this, you agree to the restrictions that are also included in the new OGL.

Don't like the restrictions, don't get the benefits.

Again, just my prediction...

 

[dmccoy1693]

If they call the 4e license an "Open Game License" and do not call the 4e SRD "Open Game Content", then the OGL 1.0a allows existing Open Game Content to be re-released under the 4e OGL, but does not allow the 4e SRD to be released under the OGL 1.0a.

4. Will subsequent core releases be promptly added to the SRD?

Subsequent content will be added when it is Open Source.

emphasis mine

Well if they released 4E under OGL2.0 and designated the 4E SRD as "Open Source" and not "Open Content", then they could modify section 9 to include, "All open source material can be used with OGL2.0 or later."

 

[see]

This analysis ignores the viral nature of Open Content. Going this route would require WOTC to argue that 4e is not Open despite being obviously derived from existing Open Content.

The trick is, what is OGC is designated by the terms of the OGL.

Imagine the following line in the "OGL 2.0":

"No material released under this License is Open Game Content, regardless of prior designation, though material previously designated Open Game Content may be released under the terms of this license. All material released under this license is designated Universal Game Content."

Now, OGL 1.0a's clause 9 would mean I can release any existing "Open Game Content" under the terms of the OGL 2.0 — including the designation-stripping clause. And that clause in the OGL 2.0 would mean nothing released under it is "Open Game Content", and so Section 9, which by its own wording only applies to designated "Open Game Content", would not apply to anything released under the OGL 2.0.