The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Guest 85555]

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.

The bolded part is why I mentioned it as it presents a big unknown it seems until it gets tested in the courts. It seems like it might be an answer both sides could be wary of receiving

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

Sorry. You can't use beholder in this context. It is not Open Game Content.

 

[S'mon]

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)?

Could be!

If that's potentially the case then releasing material under OGL 1.1 would be effectively the same as releasing under OGL 1.0. I assume WoTC will eventually notice this.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Sorry. You can't use beholder in this context. It is not Open Game Content.

Actually, you can.

Publishing that one line joke on DMs Guild would allow you access to that product identity content for the punchline.

All for the low, low price of half the money you make and not being able to tell it anywhere else.

 

[bedir than]

There's a much better joke above. I deleted my commy

 

[kenada]

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 assumes the 1.0a will be is an authorized version of the OGL for use with the 2024 rules SRD, which seems very unlikely. WotC is the copyright holder of the SRD text, so they can (re)release it under whatever terms they want. They could even release a 5.2 SRD that does nothing but bump the license version to 1.1.

My non-lawyer understanding (based on working with open-source software) is if you want to mix OGC that was released under the 1.0a OGL with that which is only 1.1 OGL, then the aggregate must be released under the 1.1 OGL (as allowed by section 9 of the 10.a OGL), but you would still have to honor the requirements of the 1.0a OGL for the incorporated content.

For example, you release a product that uses a monster from the Pathfinder bestiary, converting it to the 2024 rules. That conversion would have to be made available under the 1.0a OGL, but the other stuff would remain exclusively OGL 1.1. If it’s not possible to do the conversion without “tainting” it the OGL 1.1 SRD, then you can’t use the monster or do the conversion.

 

[Alzrius]

That assumes the 1.0a will be is an authorized version of the OGL for use with the 2024 rules SRD, which seems very unlikely. WotC is the copyright holder of the SRD text, so they can (re)release it under whatever terms they want. They could even release a 5.2 SRD that does nothing but bump the license version to 1.1.

While there's currently no understanding for what "authorized" means in the context of Section 9, my guess would be that it'd be difficult to argue that the OGL v1.0 and OGL v1.0a aren't considered "authorized" versions of the license with regard to being able to "to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." After all, v1.0a was presumably authorized to be used with v1.0 materials, and there's no wording about revoking authorization, so why wouldn't be it authorized to be used with Open Game Content released under v1.1?

My non-lawyer understanding (based on working with open-source software) is if you want to mix OGC that was released under the 1.0a OGL with that which is only 1.1 OGL, then the aggregate must be released under the 1.1 OGL (as allowed by section 9 of the 10.a OGL), but you would still have to honor the requirements of the 1.0a OGL for the incorporated content.

Well, as I outlined previously, it seems like a straight reading of Section 9 would allow things to go the other direction: that 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.

 

[Baron Opal II]

I agree with @FrogReaver's analysis: Jane is breach of her contractual obligations to Bob under the OGL 1.0, as she has not complied with her obligation to provide a royalty-free licence for the use of the OGC. Under the OGL 1.1, royalties are payable (on a conditional basis).

This is the basis of @estar's concerns, as I understand them.

Wrong direction of responsibility. Bob, through OGL 1.0 freely surrenders royalties from any future party. When Jane releases her supplement, she freely surrenders any royalties from any future party for the use of her open game content. What is new is that if a publisher meets a high revenue threshold they and they alone owe royalties to the owner of the ruleset.

I personally have no real stake in the issue of whether or not WotC's plans lead to multiple, separate, OGL communities. (Whereas this is an important issue for estar.) I'm just commenting on the legal analysis.

I as well.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Possibly - Bob sues Jane as she didn't have a license to use OGL 1.1 for his product as the terms of OGL 1.0/1.0a are in conflict with the terms of OGL 1.1 and part of OGL 1.0/1.0a is she must include a similar license for others to use the content she derived from Bob?

Bob has no standing as he voluntarily relinquished royalty rights. He suffers no damages by Jane paying a royalty to WotC due to high sales. What would he sue for? He is owed nothing since he explicitly designated the part Jane used as open game content. She must designate the open game content she used as from Bob, and any open game content created by Bob or Jane used by later authors is explicitly royalty free to future authors. That section specifically protects future authors from lawsuits by past authors.

There is no conflict.

 

[kenada]

While there's currently no understanding for what "authorized" means in the context of Section 9, my guess would be that it'd be difficult to argue that the OGL v1.0 and OGL v1.0a aren't considered "authorized" versions of the license with regard to being able to "to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." After all, v1.0a was presumably authorized to be used with v1.0 materials, and there's no wording about revoking authorization, so why wouldn't be it authorized to be used with Open Game Content released under v1.1?

“Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 2024 (“SRD2024”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.1.”

I modified that from the opening text of the 5.1 SRD. If WotC puts a statement like it at the top of the SRD, and assuming the 1.1 OGL only allows forward compatibility, it’s clear the 1.0a OGL is not an authorized version for this SRD.

Well, as I outlined previously, it seems like a straight reading of Section 9 would allow things to go the other direction: that 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.

See above. This wouldn’t be the first time a new license is not compatible with an older version (e.g., GNU GPL v2 and v3 are not compatible unless the former is licensed as v2+).