The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[kenada]

You had said:

But now you're assuming they would've had some other choice. If the original OGL had included royalty terms, and upon the release of 4e Paizo faced a choice of the GSL (to continue publishing official D&D content) or the royalty-encumbered OGL, they might very well have forged ahead with a 3.x-based Pathfinder anyway, royalties or no (depending on royalty terms, anticipated profit margins, etc.). Retrospectively arguing that royalty requirements would've prevented the appearance of Pathfinder (or the OSR) is speculation, and the inclusion of royalty terms in OGL 1.1 doesn't necessarily preclude its use in generating future business ventures.

Of course, OGL 1.0 still exists, and is royalty-free, providing another option.

Yep, it is speculation. See post #21 for additional clarification. I’m still skeptical about Paizo though. They created Pathfinder (the adventure series) after they lost the Dungeon and Dragon licenses. Would they have been willing to deal with WotC again? I don’t know. It would help if we know the OGL 1.1 terms (particularly whether it’s revocable, which was a big problem with the original GSL).

 

[SkidAce]

Maybe I can get a copy of all of WotC's plans for 1D&D, and publish it as Open Gaming Content via OGL 1.0a before they do, thereby making it Open Content for everyone forever! (*)

Muhahahahahahaha!




* in case of legalities, I am kidding, but it does seem like it would work.

 

[kenada]

Why would Paizo agree to a license that could mean having to pay royalties for PF money?

We seem to agree? I seems unlikely that they would. There’s also the issue of whether the OGL 1.1 would even allow separate systems to be made using the 2024 rules SRD as a base. The clarifications posted in D&D Beyond read more like they want to expand the DM’s Guild model beyond that site. It’s all speculation though. Until we see what the license text actually says, it’s not possible to do much more than that.

 

[mamba]

They don't need to end anyone's perpetual licence. They don't even need to retract the offer to license the 5e SRD under the OGL v 1.0a. They just need to define the scope of the OGL 1.1 licence in such a way that stuff that is both (i) 3PP-created and (ii) SRD-derived falls under the new licence.

they cannot do that, as the SRD is already available under OGL 1.0a and that cannot be revoked or ended

They could have something that is exclusive to the new SRD be available under OGL 1.1 only, but that sounds like a relatively small amount of stuff

What it would do is create two "ecosystems" - a 1.0/1.0a one, and a 1.1 one. Which is what @estar is concerned about. Some stuff would be trapped in the old ecosystem, because for whatever reason its authors don't release it under v 1.1 (maybe they don't want to; maybe it's too hard to untangle all the OGC so that they can do so lawfully).

A user can mix and match these without any issues

 

[Ulfgeir]

Maybe I can get a copy of all of WotC's plans for 1D&D, and publish it as Open Gaming Content via OGL 1.0a before they do, thereby making it Open Content for everyone forever! (*)

Muhahahahahahaha!




* in case of legalities, I am kidding, but it does seem like it would work.

Depending on how you came across said information, WotC might have very strong opinions, and lawyers would be involved. And unless you have a very big budget and very capable lawyer's that could prove that you "white-roomed" it, things might be rather bad for you.

 

[mamba]

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

That is not 'more stick' but 'a carrot', as you cannot sell there today at all

 

[mamba]

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

Not sure, all you need to do is know which product had what income and used what version of the OGL. The finances can be merged without any issues as long as your bookkeeping is clean.

 

[mamba]

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.

The DMsGuild is not covered by the OGL, they have a separate deal and I do not seeing that going away either.

 

[mamba]

I will say, this OGL 1.1 does seem like it will break two things.

The OGL 1.0a is a safe harbor. This one isn't. Before you just needed to follow the license and agree to it's terms. Now, if you sell things, and make a certain amount a year, you have to wait on wotc. There is some point where they can say no. Yes? Does that seem correct?

wait on them for what ? collect their fee ?

Second the OGL 1.0a was a way to project D&D so it could live on regardless of what the owner of the IP did. The new OGL 1.1 doesn't seem like that would be even possible?

why not? This sounds like the risk is that WotC goes bankrupt and D&D ends up being owned by no one, then how does this impact D&D ? As far as I can tell not at all, all it does is make it impossible to pay your fee if you make more than 750k off it.

You still legally owe it, there just is no one who can legally collect it.

 

[mamba]

Disagree, D&D, as well as other RPGs, are part of our common cultural heritage. It been 50 years we should not have to pay rent for it. Especially to a nonperson corporation that never was involved in its creation.

Pretty sure actual laws disagree with you on this, any 'should' aside