OGL and ORC; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[Reynard]

Sure; no one suggested that you needed to use the d20 STL to use the SRD (and you didn't; lots of products used the SRD without using the d20 STL), though I do think that the d20 STL wasn't something that could be used (in any meaningful way) without also using the OGL. But your question was if a book could be released under two licenses simultaneously, and the slew of OGL/d20 STL products that we got make it very clear that such a thing is entirely possible.

It's not really the same question that I asked, since those licenses don't do the same thing for competing interests.

 

[schneeland]

Yes, although I am not sure how they square that.

Based on experiences in the software world, I would say: dual licensing is not a problem as long as you have created all code/content on your own (or have a contributor license agreement that allows you to treat it as if you had); the trouble only starts if you are using other people's stuff (since then you a) need to make sure you still respect the original license and b) cannot simply re-publish it under a different license since you normally don't have the rights to do that).

 

[Scribe]

1.0a becomes a dead/legacy license. Old stuff that used it remains, but no new stuff comes from it.
OGL 1.x becomes the way forward FOR D&D COMPATIBLE PRODUCTS.

This is the crux.

1.0a = 5e SRD.

5e SRD = OneD&D compatible.

OneD&D = Evergreen Edition.

If those things all remain true, there is factually no need, for a new license.

Wizard's likely believes they cannot let the 1.0 OGL live, as their evergreen edition is exposed via it.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Yes, although I am not sure how they square that.

As long as they own the rights to every single scrap of material enclosed within themselves (or have permission from someone that does), releasing the same thing under two wildly different licenses is fine. It's then the choice of anyone reusing which of those licences they are using it under and to pass on to their audience (or potentially both again, if they can say the same about their own product)

 

[Voadam]

Can you simultaneously license the same material under 2 different licenses, especially if those licenses have very different views of access and obligation? I don't know.

You mean like a 4e Midgard Bestiary from Kobold Press under the GSL and a separate Pathfinder Midgard Bestiary from Kobold Press under the OGL?

Not the exact same stuff, but doing two identically themed products covering the same stuff for two different game systems under two different licenses is a thing you can do.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't think this will happen. I do not think a significant number of 3PP will publish material under the new OGL.

Unless Wizards backs off even more, I agree.

As far as D&D content, I think the most likely scenario is someone publishes 5E content using OGL 1.0a into the ORC while 1.0a still exists...

That doesn't work. Wizards owns the copyright on the 5E SRD. They have not and presumably will not sign on to the ORC, and the OGL doesn't give you any authority to do so on their behalf. Therefore, anyone sued by Wizards for infringement can't point to the ORC as a defense; Wizards just replies, "We didn't sign that, so we are not bound by it. Pay up."

What might work would be to painstakingly rewrite the 5E SRD in your own words, consulting at every step with a lawyer, and then release that under the ORC. However, Wizards could still file suit alleging copyright infringement -- this is America, anyone can sue anybody for anything -- and you would then incur all the legal costs of defending that case, and no lawyer can guarantee that you'd win.

All of which leaves you in much the same situation as if you'd simply ignored the "revocation," published your stuff under the OGL 1.0a, and told Wizards to bring it on. (In fact, from what ENWorld's resident lawyers have been saying, it sounds like the OGL 1.0a lawsuit would be a lot quicker and less expensive than a copyright case.)

 

[M_Natas]

Yes, although I am not sure how they square that.

The same way a stock footage website offers different Licenses for different prices.
You can offer your product, as long as the license is not an exclusive one, under several different Licenses.
And the OGL 1.0a js non-exclusive.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

You mean like a 4e Midgard Bestiary from Kobold Press under the GSL and a separate Pathfinder Midgard Bestiary from Kobold Press under the OGL?

Not the exact same stuff, but doing two identically themed products covering the same stuff for two different game systems under two different licenses is a thing you can do.

Didn't the GSL specifically forbid that lol or did the later GSL revision un-forbid it? Or did Kobold just give two fingers to the GSL?

 

[Alzrius]

Didn't the GSL specifically forbid that lol or did the later GSL revision un-forbid it? Or did Kobold just give two fingers to the GSL?

The revised GSL, released in early 2009, made no mention of the Open Game License whatsoever, as I recall.

 

[OB1]

Interesting. Feels like 3PDs creating games for both Xbox and Playstation. The game is mostly the same, just released on two platforms with small tweaks.