Forking the OGL

[Ranger REG]

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'm guessing the new OGL won't be called "OGL" in the first place. Perhaps Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License (or DnDOGL)? (Where "open" is more strictly defined and limited.)

The new nearly-true OGL will come after the new d20 Modern is released (unless it too will have strict compatibility language, community standard clause, etc.).

 

[JDJblatherings]

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.

Section 9 doens't pertain to an ogl for 4th edition. It pertains to changes made to the 3.x ogl.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Section 9 doens't pertain to an ogl for 4th edition. It pertains to changes made to the 3.x ogl.

There is no such thing as a 3.x OGL.

 

[Dragonblade]

Well, if WotC is just releasing an updated version of the OGL, then they probably have a clause that states that 4e is considered closed under version 1.0 of the license and is only open if they follow the rules in the 2.0 version of the license (or whatever version it is).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, if WotC is just releasing an updated version of the OGL, then they probably have a clause that states that 4e is considered closed under version 1.0 of the license and is only open if they follow the rules in the 2.0 version of the license (or whatever version it is).

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.

 

[BryonD]

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

Maybe so. I'm just throwing out guesses as to how the pieces of this puzzle might fit together. I had not heard Erik's comment. But assuming it is right then I have no clue.

 

[BryonD]

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.

That was my thinking. It is not open, it a vehicle for using their closed stuff.

Which would make it interesting to see how 3rd party stuff is designated. It may put a damper on the viral effect of the old SRD. Which I'll admit didn't come into play that much, but did work really really well on a few occasions.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Wouldn't "this is the only way to work with 4E" be sufficient?

 

[JDJblatherings]

There is no such thing as a 3.x OGL.

argghh...yuo know what i meant.

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.

 

[BryonD]

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.

But what if it isn't new version?
Section 9 of the OGL is still fully in place. But it just has nothing in the world to do with the "4GL" (or whatever)