The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[S'mon]

What I've got in mind is that material found in a revised SRD (say, a new way of describing Elves) might be (in some fashion) derivative of material found in the 5e SRD (say, the existing way of describing Elves) and hence be something that the existing licence permits an existing licensee to use as OGC.

If you use the OGL & 5e SRD you can use the contents of the 5e SRD plus any non-copyright-protected material/concepts in a later SRD. You don't gain any special rights over material derivative of material in the 5e SRD afaics, if that material is independently copyright protected. The normal rules for copyright protection apply to derivative works. If I have a licence to use copyright work A, and B is a copyright work derivative of A, the licence to A doesn't give me any right to use B.

 

[pemerton]

If you use the OGL & 5e SRD you can use the contents of the 5e SRD plus any non-copyright-protected material/concepts in a later SRD. You don't gain any special rights over material derivative of material in the 5e SRD afaics, if that material is independently copyright protected. The normal rules for copyright protection apply to derivative works. If I have a licence to use copyright work A, and B is a copyright work derivative of A, the licence to A doesn't give me any right to use B.

That makes sense.

But does the definition of OGC in the OGL v 1.0/1.0a make a difference?

"Open Game Content" means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law, but specifically excludes Product Identity​

(My emphasis.)

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

I just had a thought.

You know what I haven't seen mentioned on any of these threads?

How many companies are going to do the cost-benefit analysis of possibly paying a royalty but being able to say they're 'compatible with the World's Largest Roleplaying Game' (which seems to be boilerplate even for WotC covers) versus deciding to forgo it and have to create their own systems, their own mechanics.

System mechanics and licensing are nothing new. I'm sure SSI paid a pretty penny to put out the Gold Box series of games, in addition to the other AD&D games. I'm not sure how much it would have cost Interplay to use GURPS for Fallout 1, but they decided not to pay and reworked it into the beloved(?) SPECIAL system now.

TLDR - cost of royalty to 'buy' access to percieved-legitimacy-of-product vs cost of creating/marketing/etc a new system. Because also, if you decide to make your own system and publish, now you're competing not just against WotC but Paizo, SJG, Chaosium, Black Hat, etc as a non-D&D game.

 

[mamba]

You haven't told me what your reason is for this claim.

Reading the license and understanding how (open) licenses work. You haven't offered anything at all either btw... all you say is 'I do not understand why a license is different from tons of individual contracts'

In every other domain of commercial life, offers that have not crystallised into obligations can be retracted. Why do you think WotC's offer to license the 5e SRD under the OGL v 1.0a is different?

It isn't, it works just like any other open license. Once something is released under it, it stays available indefinitely.

You've just described the contract that you have said doesn't exist!

It is not a contract in the sense that no two parties came together and signed something. If that were necessary WotC could indeed decide not to sign. They signed 10 years ago however and anyone who wants to can grab a copy and sign their part at any time. WotC cannot take their signature back. I agree that technically that does not make it any less of a contract however, I just tried to explain the part where WotC does not get to decide again whether to sign.

EDIT: maybe this helps WotC - What's All This About The OGL Going Away?

"The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that."

 

[codo]

I dint think WotC is going to touch the OGL 1.

But for arguments sake what if they tried? What would Joe 3rd party dev do?

Class action?

Even if it’s a slam dunk for 3rd parties and wins in court winning might not matter.

Could they pour enough cold water on it to essentially stop it’s use?

I’m not sure.

The OGL is heavily inspired by and based on open source software licenses. Much of the core backbone for the internet infrastructure runs on open source software licensed under similar agreements. If WotC managed to get the OGL 1 thrown out in court, it would throw the global internet and computing world into chaos. A lot more is at stake than WotC bullying small game designers.

 

[Lanefan]

Reading the license and understanding how (open) licenses work. You haven't offered anything at all either btw... all you say is 'I do not understand why a license is different from tons of individual contracts'

It isn't, it works just like any other open license. Once something is released under it, it stays available indefinitely.

It is not a contract in the sense that no two parties came together and signed something. If that were necessary WotC could indeed decide not to sign. They signed 10 years ago however and anyone who wants to can grab a copy and sign their part at any time. WotC cannot take their signature back. I agree that technically that does not make it any less of a contract however, I just tried to explain the part where WotC does not get to decide again whether to sign.

I'm not all that up on these things, but you and @pemerton seem to be outright saying the opposite thing in one regard: whether WotC can stop the offer in previous versions of the OGL on release of the new one; by (more-legalistic) language saying something like "Immediately on the release of this OGL, all prior versions of the OGL become null and void. Material produced and released prior to [date of OGL 1.1 release] using a previous version of the OGL may still be distributed as before, but no new material can be released using any version of the OGL other than this one."*

As per the old OGL, material released using it has a perpetual right to remain in release, etc. - WotC/Hasbro can't take that away as it's right there in the OGL. It's how new material and-or new publishers post 1.1-release will be constrained that has me wondering.

Pemerton seems to be saying they can do what I posit above, you seem to be saying they cannot. So, is this or is this not a get-in-before-the-lock situation?

* - whether this is a good idea for WotC or not doesn't matter - I'm asking can they, not should they.

 

[kenada]

I'm not all that up on these things, but you and @pemerton seem to be outright saying the opposite thing in one regard: whether WotC can stop the offer in previous versions of the OGL on release of the new one; by (more-legalistic) language saying something like "Immediately on the release of this OGL, all prior versions of the OGL become null and void. Material produced and released prior to [date of OGL 1.1 release] using a previous version of the OGL may still be distributed as before, but no new material can be released using any version of the OGL other than this one."*

As per the old OGL, material released using it has a perpetual right to remain in release, etc. - WotC/Hasbro can't take that away as it's right there in the OGL. It's how new material and-or new publishers post 1.1-release will be constrained that has me wondering.

Pemerton seems to be saying they can do what I posit above, you seem to be saying they cannot. So, is this or is this not a get-in-before-the-lock situation?

* - whether this is a good idea for WotC or not doesn't matter - I'm asking can they, not should they.

I think the point is WotC is under no obligation to make the OGL 1.0a SRDs available indefinitely, and acceptance of the license is contingent on using the OGC (per sections 3 and 4, as noted by @pemerton). This is already true for the 3.5e SRD. It’s not available from WotC anymore. Those who have not accepted the license by using that SRD’s content have no rights to exercise. There’s no way for them to get the content from WotC.

Fortunately, the OGL allows those who have accepted the license to OGC to redistribute it. That’s the only way to get the 3.5e SRD now, and I expect that will be the case for the 5.1 SRD once WotC releases the 2024 rules SRD under the OGL 1.1.

The only way WotC could actually kill the 1.0a OGL is through a poison pill in the 1.1 OGL that requires you to no longer distribute OGL 1.0a content as part of the conditions for accepting the 1.1 OGL. They’ve already tried it once with the original GSL, so it’s not impossible, but I think it’s unlikely. The poison pill was removed from the GSL due to negative feedback. It would be stupid to try again after that.

 

[mamba]

I'm not all that up on these things, but you and @pemerton seem to be outright saying the opposite thing in one regard: whether WotC can stop the offer in previous versions of the OGL on release of the new one

yes we are, and he is wrong

Pemerton seems to be saying they can do what I posit above, you seem to be saying they cannot. So, is this or is this not a get-in-before-the-lock situation?

it is not, the license cannot be revoked so you can use it today, after OGL 1.1 is out or in 50 years when we are on OGL 3.7

The only thing WotC can decide at this point is whether to make newer SRDs available under the same license or a different one. The SRD 5.1 will always be available under the terms of OGL 1.0a for anyone to use.

 

[pemerton]

"The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that."

The non-rescission is as between parties. Not as between WotC and everyone in the world who is not yet a party. The offer to enter into the licence agreement is not itself a licensing agreement.

I'm not all that up on these things, but you and @pemerton seem to be outright saying the opposite thing in one regard: whether WotC can stop the offer in previous versions of the OGL on release of the new one; by (more-legalistic) language saying something like "Immediately on the release of this OGL, all prior versions of the OGL become null and void. Material produced and released prior to [date of OGL 1.1 release] using a previous version of the OGL may still be distributed as before, but no new material can be released using any version of the OGL other than this one."*

As per the old OGL, material released using it has a perpetual right to remain in release, etc. - WotC/Hasbro can't take that away as it's right there in the OGL. It's how new material and-or new publishers post 1.1-release will be constrained that has me wondering.

Pemerton seems to be saying they can do what I posit above, you seem to be saying they cannot. So, is this or is this not a get-in-before-the-lock situation?

* - whether this is a good idea for WotC or not doesn't matter - I'm asking can they, not should they.

You seem to be making the same confusion as @mamba seems to me to be making: you are not distinguishing between an offer to enter into a licence agreement on certain terms, including that the licence is irrevocable, and actually entering into a licence agreement with someone on those terms. WotC can't rescind irrevocable licences that it has entered into. But it can decline to enter into more such licences. (Of course, under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a already-existing licensees can continue to enter into sub-licences with new parties that permit those new parties to use WotC material. That is part of the point of the OGL. That is why, as I have posted a couple of times already, there would be no practical reason for WotC to withdraw its offer.)

 

[mamba]

The non-rescission is as between parties. Not as between WotC and everyone in the world who is not yet a party. The offer to enter into the licence agreement is not itself a licensing agreement.

Please address the rest of the quote then: "Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license [...] remains OGC forever, available for use under the license"

You are simply wrong, but clearly I cannot make you see that