No d20 license

[jmucchiello]

From the Definitely no D20 License for 4th Edition article:
D&D Brand Manager Scott Rouse has confiirmed unequivocably
[bq]We are looking to incorporate some sort of compatibility language within the new version of the OGL. Something like "Compatible with the 4th Edition of the Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying game..."[/bq]

I certainly hope that means the section 15 of the 4e SRD is where they are putting that language and not in the actual license, looking something like this:

4e SRD copyright 2008 Wizards of the Coast, developed by name, name, name. Based on words of Gygax and Arneson. Compatible with the 4th Edition of D&D...

 

[Ranger REG]

I'm worried that the OGL is not only a content license but also a WotC-specifc trademark usage license.

I'm also worried that one poster's statement may be true, that we cannot use previous OGL versions (v1.0a and/or v1.0a) to use with 4e SRD.

I mean, what if someone else want to use the OGL for a totally different original rulesystem that he wants to designate as OGC?

 

[Bacris]

If it was a totally different rule system and not based off the 4E SRD, then why couldn't they just use v1.0a of the OGL?

But yeah, I'm interested in seeing just what the 4E version of the OGL entails...

Although, it can't really be an "Open Game License" and would have to have a different name because of this clause: "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

So I wonder if 4E will instead of "4th Edition Open Gaming License" - i.e. changing it just enough to not qualify as another version of the "Open Game License"

But it's all just theory at this point

 

[Ranger REG]

When is an Open Game License not an Open Game License?

(Insert joke line here)

 

[Henry]

When is an Open Game License not an Open Game License?

When it's ajar?

One possibility -- the OGL version 2 (or whatever) has some different clauses involving more creative control over products released under it, BUT includes some incentives to use it, such as greater usage of "compatible with D&D" clauses and the like. People could still use the OGL version 1, there's no question there, and any material released under the OGL, no matter the version, can be used with an older version. However, if they want that "compatible" clause, they have to use OGL version 2 (or whatever it's called). It's not the Open Content they have to convince people to use, it's the license version itself, so the license has to be the carrot, not the content released under it.

Reason for support of the OGL (as opposed to trying to make a unique 4e OGL) is the same as it has been -- if they don't support it, the possibility strongly exists for people just duplicating the content anyway in a different format, through "forward-engineering" the existing Open Game Content, to be compatible ENOUGH to make stuff usable with 4E, and all that work on content usable only with a separate OGL is wasted, anyway.

It's the "free gift with purchase" idea, in a way.

I have no clue how it'll pan out, and to be honest, I don't know if the WotC managers do at this stage, either. But they do have to satisfy both the legal and accounting, as well as the publishers, so I don't envy their positions on that.

 

[Ranger REG]

That's why I asked in another thread, "how do you improve the OGL?"

I'm just not sure if what WotC is proposing to do is the right way.

I'm of the same camp as you regarding the valid use of existing OGL for future OGC, though there are those who think or interpret otherwise.

I'm concerned they will make existing OGL invalid, despite what it stated, or WotC will be slow to take action unless the violation on the new OGL.