The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[UngainlyTitan]

“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.”

If WotC puts that statement (taken and modified from the 5.1 SRD) 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.


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+).

@Alzrius your argument may have merit but this is the way I would bet.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

Bob can sue Jane for breach of the license contract as she relinquished royalty rights on the derivative product as use of that product requires the derivative to be royalty free. At the minimum he forces her to stop selling the content under the royalty. I’m no expert but that Jane made money off the license breach would place those earnings or some portion of them in potential jeopardy. One doesn’t normally get to enrich themselves by using IP they had no rights to use.

 

[Alzrius]

“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.

Hm, that would seem to be the case if they did that. It would probably be more clear-cut if they used the term "authorized" in that context, but that does seem fairly straightforward.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Bob can sue Jane for breach of the license contract as she relinquished royalty rights on the derivative product as use of that product requires the derivative to be royalty free. At the minimum he forces her to stop selling the content under the royalty. I’m no expert but that Jane made money off the license breach would place those earnings or some portion of them in potential jeopardy. One doesn’t normally get to enrich themselves by using IP they had no rights to use.

Correct in that neither Bob nor Jane can receive royalties for their work from future authors. If Jane ever charges royalties for her work or Bob's, then she is in breach. If Jane pays royalties to WotC, that is a different situation. Royalty rights are rights to receive compensation from others that use your work. Jane isn't getting anything that Bob is entitled to. He has no standing or cause for a suit. What redress is Bob trying to get, a royalty that he waived that Jane didn't receive? You don't relinquish rights to pay a royalty; that's non-sensical.

The waiving of royalties refers to the author waiving the right to receive royalties for their work in return for creating and selling material that utilizes the D&D ruleset. The new license states there is a singular instance where a royalty is paid, not to the author, which has been permanently waived, but the owner of the ruleset that the works are derived from.

There is no breach. No author is receiving a royalty. There also isn't an issue, as far as I can see, with Jane using OGL 1.0 material in a OGL 1.1 product. A future author would need to be clear on the source of Bob's material, did it come from Bob's product under OGL 1.0 or through Jane's OGL 1.1?

(Emphasis to highlight what I think are key points, not emotional emphasis. I stand upon my soapbox rhetorically only.)

 

[Dausuul]

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?

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.

So far, I have seen two actual lawyers post in these threads. Neither of them agreed with this view of Section 9.

Nor does common sense. Hasbro's lawyers have the reputation of being good at their jobs, not to say fearsome. It is possible that they have drafted a license which is entirely nullified by the terms of the previous license... but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

 

[Alzrius]

So far, I have seen two actual lawyers post in these threads. Neither of them agreed with this view of Section 9.

Well that's clearly not correct.

Nor does common sense. Hasbro's lawyers have the reputation of being good at their jobs, not to say fearsome. It is possible that they have drafted a license which is entirely nullified by the terms of the previous license... but I sure wouldn't bet on it.

If your bet is on how competent Hasbro is with regard to their own business interests, then both recent and not-so-recent history suggests that you're not gauging "common sense" very well.

 

[S'mon]

Well that's clearly not correct.

I think any real lawyer will say "it depends" - you never really know for sure how a judge is going to rule. Certainly if I was advising WoTC on how best to do what they say what they want to do, I'd advise them not to release ONED&D under anything titled "OGL", certainly not "OGL 1.1", since by choosing to do so they risk bringing in the more generous terms of the OGL 1.0. If they want to be able to impose their new terms, it's far safer to call the licence something else.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is your hobby and your game now. Don't let Hasbro try to take that away from you.

Fight On!

Oh, please.

It's a valuable IP and it belongs to Hasbro not you/us.

Don't like it? Write and publish your own game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This message has a familiar ring to it. Something about stopping Wizards of the Coast? Something about fighting and soldiers and karate belts? I wasn't paying very close attention.

I was thinking:

Mod Edit:
Um... clearly not thinking about the site's no-politics rule. Image removed. ~Umbran

 

[Lanefan]

No, there's no time limit. Open Game Content released under the Open Game License 1.0a can always be used under the Open Game License 1.0a.

Now, any given publisher might enter into an agreement that limits its right to do so, but that doesn't affect anyone else's ability to sit down in the year 2525 and release their own D&D 3rd edition-compatible Pocket Player's Handbook.

What about 0e, 1e, 2e or 5e? (4e has its own license)