So what DOES 1.1 allow?

[Greg Benage]

I don't agree because it's basically IP-destroying, as everything it is auto-shared. You have no designation or control at all. I think licences like that make sense for software, but for creative stuff, they make no sense unless you're intending to never make any money from stuff related to that.

Yeah, that's how non-commercial share-alike licenses work. I guess this is a little worse than most because there's no attribution.

 

[Remathilis]

I think the Non-Commercial license is okay. It's pretty much a non-commercial share-alike license. I honestly think the Commercial license amounts to "Come talk to us or stick to DM's Guild." Even if you never expect to get near the $750,000 royalty threshold, I can't see why any commercial publisher would accept the terms of this license.

This is the best answer I've gotten. If I plan on making free content, the non-commercial license is fine, but if I want to make money, use DMs Guild. The commercial version is a trap.

It's not that I'm particularly excited about this, but I want to actually understand what is being offered without comparison to 1.0a which I know is a clearly superior deal. Assuming nothing changes, what are the options going forward.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is the best answer I've gotten. If I plan on making free content, the non-commercial license is fine, but if I want to make money, use DMs Guild. The commercial version is a trap.

It's not that I'm particularly excited about this, but I want to actually understand what is being offered without comparison to 1.0a which I know is a clearly superior deal. Assuming nothing changes, what are the options going forward.

I'm not a lawyer so don't take my advice! That said, the non-commercial looks to me like a non-commercial share-alike license with no attribution. So other non-commercial publishers will be able to use your stuff without crediting you.

 

[mamba]

I am sure the compatibility logo is intended to be a boon.

intended, sure..

 

[Remathilis]

IANAL, but from reading it.

1) Two licences, commercial and non-commercial.

2) Non-commercial only applies if you ONLY give away stuff for free. Any kind of paywall or anything at all except tip buckets like KoFi, you are commercial. Even barter or exchange makes it commercial (they specify!).

3) Non-commercial lets others use your work - any or all of - you can't protect any of it. So it's like you marked the entire document (including illustrations, maps, etc.) "Open Gaming Content" under OGL 1.0a.

4) Commercial to be clear, does not let you share anything with anyone, but WotC, so I know the focus isn't on restrictions, but I just need that to be clear. There is no "open" and no "sharing" with any but WotC with Commercial.

5) What can you sell under the OGL? Print and PDF/ePub/mobi essentially. That's it.

They specifically ban a bunch of stuff, but we're not talking about that. Assume if I didn't say it you can't.

6) However, they are clear you get to sell "self-merch" pretty freely. Physical goods particularly. So long as they're 100% about your IP and not D&D. So minis, letter-openers, dice, etc. - are all going to be fine so long as you don't but anything from the SRD on them, or anything WotC owns. They also don't count against the $750k. But the second something touches the SRD or even thinks about it, it does count.

7) You get a logo.

8) You get to use anything in the SRD 5.1.

No that's not a typo. Only that SRD. Not a future SRD. Not a past SRD. Just 5.1. Also you've got to mark everything in your book that is from the SRD. Examples they suggest are a different font, different colour text, or pages at the back listing out what's SRD and what's not. Yes I know we already had access to it under OGL 1.0a lol.

8) You get a number of requirements from WotC you have to fulfil that increase as you make more money per annum.

So what's in it for you? A logo, a single specific SRD you already have access to, and legal safe-harbour. And it all it cost you was the entire concept of Open Gaming. It's very hard to see why anyone would sign up to this, given the main reason people went OGL in the first place was the Open Gaming bit.

TLDR: The only actual carrot is a logo. Everything else carrot-flavoured was in OGL 1.0a.


I don't agree because it's basically IP-destroying, as everything it is auto-shared. You have no designation or control at all. I think licences like that make sense for software, but for creative stuff, they make no sense unless you're intending to never make any money from stuff related to that.

That is exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[Cadence]

I'm not a lawyer so don't take my advice! That said, the non-commercial looks to me like a non-commercial share-alike license with no attribution. So other non-commercial publishers will be able to use your stuff without crediting you.

Does most share and share alike come with "we can tell you to stop distributing it at any time we want, and we still get to use it"? (I honestly don't know).

 

[Knight_Marshal]

Don't forget the part where once your product is done, they can revoke your license, forbid you from making money off of it and sell it as their own at no cost to them.

 

[aco175]

As far as everyone knows today- this is not affecting the DMsGuild model in place?

 

[Remathilis]

Don't forget the part where once your product is done, they can revoke your license, forbid you from making money off of it and sell it as their own at no cost to them.

Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.

 

[Cadence]

Which, afaik, they could do on DMs Guild and with anything designated ogc.

But not for the OGL 1.0a stuff in general, right?