Forking the OGL

[Wulf Ratbane]

Knock yourself out, turn yourself in knots.

WOTC won't be playing those games.

 

[Reynard]

I wonder if the new OGL will be NDA'd along with the rules or if we'll be able to view it in advance?

 

[Oldtimer]

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.

But the definition of OGC is already "any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law". Surely most of the rules of 4e would be considered derivative works? For those you cannot redefine anything.

 

[see]

Oh, I'm not saying it's likely, much less certain. I merely am circumscribing the limits of the possible. The reality is, Section 9 only really means anything if WotC acts in good faith. I expect WotC will act in good faith, if only because in my judgment, the cost-benefit ratio favors acting in good faith.

 

[Delta]

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.

Excellent thread, excellent post. I completely agree with everything here.

I hope they have some lawyers look very carefully at those two licenses. If they're sloppy with the terms, it will be a gigantic legal mess afterwards. Nightmare scenario might be that they're doing it on purpose to raise doubts about the OGL 1.0. They really should have a different name for the new one.

 

[S'mon]

It looks to me that you could legally create 4e-compatible material under the original (3e) OGL, without using the 4e 'OGL'; game mechanics are not copyright-protected, nor will they be 'product identity' under the 3e OGL, so neither IP nor contract law will stop this.

But you would need to avoid infringing 4e-specific trademarks in your work, which might create some limitations.

 

[S'mon]

But the definition of OGC is already "any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law". Surely most of the rules of 4e would be considered derivative works? For those you cannot redefine anything.

AFAIK WotC is not bound by the terms of the OGL re derivative works, which apply to third-party publishers, not them. Because WoTC does not publish under the OGL.

 

[Delta]

WOTC is not oblivious to these considerations...

Today, I'd have to say I'm skeptical of that -- the people doing publicity on that phone conference sure seem prone to scrample up terms like "OGL", "OGC", "Open Source", and "d20 System".

I think some possibilities could still be (a) the have a business case in place but haven't had the lawyers go over the license terminology yet, (b) the people doing publicity aren't fully trained to to distinguish issues between the licenses, etc.

Based on what they literally said today (as you've so well pointed out), they definitely have a technical problem between what they're verbally calling the new license, and what use of that name legally implies via the existing license. I'll look forward to seeing if that's just a mistake, intent to FUD up the existing license, or some surgically-precise new legal distinction (I think the first is most likely as of today).

 

[see]

But the definition of OGC is already "any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law". Surely most of the rules of 4e would be considered derivative works? For those you cannot redefine anything.

The question is, when dealing with material released under an "OGL 2.0", does the "OGL 2.0" or the OGL 1.0a control the definition of "Open Game Content" when it comes to evaluating the rights under Section 9 of the OGL 1.0a? I don't see that there's an especially clear and obvious answer. The logical license to evaluate the status of material released under an "OGL 2.0" is the definition in a "OGL 2.0"; the logical license to evaluate the meaning of the term for section 9 of the OGL 1.0a is under the OGL 1.0a. Unfortunately, they would disagree . . .

WotC, taking ordinary care, could make sure the 4e SRD was legally a derivative work of 4e, and that 4e was a derivative work of 3.5 but not derived from the RSRD. In that case, all 4e SRD elements would clearly be only governed by the "OGL 2.0". But material derived both from the 4e SRD and from OGL 1.0a Open Game Content? Headache city. How much an hour does a good copyright/licensing attorney cost?

 

[lurkinglidda]

I wonder if the new OGL will be NDA'd along with the rules or if we'll be able to view it in advance?

The OGL will be under NDA along with the rules.