Forking the OGL

[Oldtimer]

Huh?

I don't see how that quote of Scott's has any relevance to the forking and section 9 discussion. The OP opened the thread on forking of the OGL and Wulf and I expressed that this seems to go against section 9 of the OGL.

How is that linked to Scott's quote where he says that they won't be revoking the current OGL (which they cannot even do)?

 

[BryonD]

So section 9 of the 3E OGL (version 1.0a) - which talks about newer versions - only applies to that version?? Yeh, that makes a lot of sense...

I think it would be very easy to talk around that. This isn't a new version. It is a whole new stand alone, start from scratch license.

 

[Oldtimer]

I think it would be very easy to talk around that. This isn't a new version. It is a whole new stand alone, start from scratch license.

That is probably correct. In which case they shouldn't even be talking about an OGL, since that could give someone legal ground to consider it a new version.

This is indeed muddy waters.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Just Call the the "Uber-Spiffy OGL License" and release it. It's not a fork of the OGL.

 

[Dragonblade]

The existing OGL applies only to those rules that are designated open content under it specifically.

WotC's new 4e stuff will not be open under the original OGL, but will be opened under a completely distinct and separate game license (which I won't refer to as the OGL to avoid confusion) with its own rules.

From the perspective of the original OGL, 4e is completely closed content. However the existing open content is still open so M&M, Spycraft 2.0 and other original OGL based products ARE NOT AFFECTED by the new rules AT ALL. Their publishers can continue to publish those games under the original OGL.

However, anyone wanting to publish anything that uses 4e content must abide by WotCs new license which we haven't seen yet. Though many fans may call this new license an OGL, it is not technically part of the original OGL unless WotC specifically designates it as such.

That means clauses about people being able to use any version of the OGL, really mean that they can choose to ignore or adopt updates to the original OGL as they see fit. However, everything WotC does with 4e will be released under a distinct and separate license. Popular fandom may confusingly refer to it as the OGL, but they are not the same.

 

[Psion]

I think it would be very easy to talk around that. This isn't a new version. It is a whole new stand alone, start from scratch license.

I thought it's been established (per Erik Mona per WotC) that is not the case.

 

[Oldtimer]

However, anyone wanting to publish anything that uses 4e content must abide by WotCs new license which we haven't seen yet. Though many fans may call this new license an OGL, it is not technically part of the original OGL unless WotC specifically designates it as such.

<snip>

However, everything WotC does with 4e will be released under a distinct and separate license. Popular fandom may confusingly refer to it as the OGL, but they are not the same.

Except for the fact it's not only "popular fandom" refering to it as OGL, I would agree.

Wizards of the Coast has developed a new, two-phased release structure for the Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition System Reference Document (SRD) and Open Gaming License (OGL).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Depends on how you define "forked".

If the 4E SRD is released under a fully new OGL then the old OGL will still apply, but only to an obsolete game rule set.

If WOTC can claim that any new version of the OGL is "fully new" then Section 9 is meaningless. I don't think that's their intent, then or now.

There will be some advantages to the new OGL to entice its use.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The existing OGL applies only to those rules that are designated open content under it specifically.

WotC's new 4e stuff will not be open under the original OGL, but will be opened under a completely distinct and separate game license (which I won't refer to as the OGL to avoid confusion) with its own rules.

4e is derivative of 3e, and 3e is Open.

While it may not be re-use 4e content verbatim under the terms of a new license, it is obviously possible to derive 4e content from 3e content-- as in, "4e has been in development since Bo9S and even earlier."

Creating 4e compatible material under the old OGL will be possible, but one would have to be very careful not to run afoul of existing copyright.

I don't believe it is WOTC's intention to try to lock down game mechanics. (A piece of a much bigger and older conversation.)

 

[GMSkarka]

My impression from the phone call was that 4th Edition will have it's own license, which they were calling the OGL, despite the big differences.

During the call, I pointed out that they had told us that there was going to be no D20 STL, only the OGL....but that in the call, they revealed that the restrictive parts of the STL (content guidelines, requiring the PHB, etc.) were going to be in the new license -- meaning that really, we had the opposite: A d20 STL, not an OGL.

The response (from Bill Slavisek, I think -- I'm not good with voice recognition) was (and this is a direct quote): "Well, that's one way you can look at it."

So it appears that the new license isn't really "open" -- it applies only to D&D, indicates compatibility, has content and taste restrictions, requires the PHB, etc.

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.