The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

I don't think they'll remove the ability to have older content on DMs Guild (otherwise, as soon as this went into effect, DMs Guild would have to stop selling all the old content, which would not be in WotCs best interest, since they make money off those sales and would alienate their creators).

It could be as simple as new content must be under 1.1 OGL.

Also, I was under the impression that DMs Guild content wasn't OGL to begin with, but rather some separate agreement (though I could be wrong).

In retrospect I think you are right here. So any discussion about the OGL for DMS Guild content is probably moot.

 

[bedir than]

For DMs Guild they could before. So that’s stick. For beyond I think whether that’s stick or carrot is in the eyes of the beholder.

DMsGuild doesn't use the OGL. It has stricter limitations.

OGL is DriveThruRPG, unaffiliated with WotC

 

[robconley]

If you change the bolded part to read:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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.

Doesn't that mean that you can use new material under an old version of the license (so long as the "new material" is designated as Open Game Content that is released under any version, past or future, of the OGL)?

In Creative Commons and Open Source license that provision is there to allow people to use content released under an older license. More specifically allows them to continue to use the older license despite the existence of a newer license. For example, the linux operating system continues to use GPL version 2, while GPL version 3 is the current version

Why is it worded the way it is and more clear? I think that is a result of how this piece of legal boilerplate developed. But you are not the first to ask this question about open license clauses like section 9.

Hope this clarifies things.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think it’s going to be more stick. Can’t sell on Wotc digital platforms without adopting 1.1 OGL.

How is that a stick? They cannot do that anyway?

 

[Alzrius]

In Creative Commons and Open Source license that provision is there to allow people to use content released under an older license. More specifically allows them to continue to use the older license despite the existence of a newer license. For example, the linux operating system continues to use GPL version 2, while GPL version 3 is the current version

Why is it worded the way it is and more clear? I think that is a result of how this piece of legal boilerplate developed. But you are not the first to ask this question about open license clauses like section 9.

Hope this clarifies things.

I appreciate the context, but I'm not sure that necessarily changes things with regard to the OGL specifically. As written, allowing people to use "any authorized version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.0a) to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content" (such as the 1D&D SRD) that was "originally distributed under any version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.1) seems like a valid interpretation based on what's written in the OGL v1.0a Section 9.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That becomes a liability if you don't keep the finances separate, which is non-trivial.

let me tell you, this is the biggest and best example of a way someone gets into massive trouble. If you comingle assets at all without perfect record keeping it can be the biggest hassle. It can mean fines, tax penalties, but it can (and does) sometimes get worse.

 

[robconley]

I appreciate the context, but I'm not sure that necessarily changes things with regard to the OGL specifically. As written, allowing people to use "any authorized version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.0a) to "copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content" (such as the 1D&D SRD) that was "originally distributed under any version of this License" (such as the OGL v1.1) seems like a valid interpretation based on what's written in the OGL v1.0a Section 9.

That may be, but if it did wind in the courts, the judges and juries put a lot of weight on intent. And the intent is to allow older versions of the license to continue to be used.

But a point in your favor is that when there is ambiguity the courts tend to adopt the most expansive interpretation against the licensor (Wizards in this case). So if it was tested what you say may be the case.

The way for Wizards around this is not to name their license as OGL 1.1. But do what they did with 4e and name it something different. It would no longer be another version of the OGL as referenced by Section 9. But rather its own thing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

That may be, but if it did wind in the courts, the judges and juries put a lot of weight on intent. And the intent is to allow older versions of the license to continue to be used.

But a point in your favor is that when there is ambiguity the courts tend to adopt the most expansive interpretation against the licensor (Wizards in this case). So if it was tested what you say may be the case.

The way for Wizards around this is not to name their license as OGL 1.1. But do what they did with 4e and name it something different. It would no longer be another version of the OGL as referenced by Section 9. But rather its own thing.

I'm not a lawyer and really don't know much about law, but something worth considering is there have been some very unusual and unexpected rulings in music IP cases in the past 5 years or so (stuff people were really surprised by) and so I would imagine until things get tested in the courts, it can be hard to predict. Maybe this is more straight forward than the music cases (my understanding is a lot of what shifted the rulings on those were some unusual arguments put forth by musicologists). Would be interested in some of the lawyers in the threads opinion on this aspect (of how far from widespread legal opinion a ruling might be able to land and potentially shake things up a lot).

 

[eyeheartawk]

I'm not a lawyer and really don't know much about law, but something worth considering is there have been some very unusual and unexpected rulings in music IP cases in the past 5 years or so (stuff people were really surprised by) and so I would imagine until things get tested in the courts, it can be hard to predict. Maybe this is more straight forward than the music cases (my understanding is a lot of what shifted the rulings on those were some unusual arguments put forth by musicologists). Would be interested in some of the lawyers in the threads opinion on this aspect (of how far from widespread legal opinion a ruling might be able to land and potentially shake things up a lot).

It's probably a factor. That cuts both ways though. I think part of the reason WotC cut a deal with Solasta was that they were afraid that it was possible that a judge would rule that it was perfectly allowable under the existing OGL. When something is no longer ambiguous your soft coercive power diminishes.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That may be, but if it did wind in the courts, the judges and juries put a lot of weight on intent. And the intent is to allow older versions of the license to continue to be used.

But a point in your favor is that when there is ambiguity the courts tend to adopt the most expansive interpretation against the licensor (Wizards in this case). So if it was tested what you say may be the case.

The way for Wizards around this is not to name their license as OGL 1.1. But do what they did with 4e and name it something different. It would no longer be another version of the OGL as referenced by Section 9. But rather its own thing.

the issue is even a company that makes 1 mil a year (I assume the biggest ones) doesn't want to be taken to court by WotC (hasbro) at all... let alone one that make 50k a year