The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[kenada]

"enhancement over the prior art" seems a weird phrase to be using here, where we are talking copyright works not patents. Game mechanics are not protectable in copyright. Maybe this is trying to stop them being protected by contract?

According to the FAQ, the intent is to prevent from trying to claim public domain content as OGC.

 

[pemerton]

According to the FAQ, the intent is to prevent from trying to claim public domain content as OGC.

I think this is what I got to upthread:

I've always been curious about the patent law stuff ("enhancement over the prior art"). The sense I had tried to make of this is that (i) if game mechanics are not an enhancement over the prior art, then they're public domain (but I'm guessing a bit here as my patent law is no better than my copyright law) and hence don't need to be and cannot be licensed, and (ii) if they are an enhancement over the prior art then you are licensing them as OGC and hence - vis-a-vis the licensee - foregoing any patent-based claim against them.

 

[kenada]

The "carrot" in that case was supposed to be access to the trade dress templates etc. It's interesting to speculate about why it flopped - I mean there's obviously the whole PF thing, but nevertheless 4e had plenty of players for a number of years and yet there seems to have been almost no 3PP take-up.

The original GSL required you to stop publishing content under the OGL. That part was removed eventually, but the damage was done.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes that is correct. WoTC itself no longer 'offers' the 3.5 SRD, but the material is still available.

Let’s be specific. Available to everyone. It is not just available to those who downloaded the material before Wotc stopped offering it.

 

[pemerton]

Let’s say Wotc does as you say (I don’t think they can) and Dan distributes the 5.1 SRD under OGC 1.0 to you. What license do you, Pemerton, have to keep and use the copyrighted material?

Who's Dan?

If someone sells or gifts me a book that contains material that was licensed to the publisher under the OGL, I get the same rights to use the material as anyone else does who purchases any book: in the US that would be fair use, I think, which I would assume must be informed by the context. (Eg if some of the text is meant to be used to play a game, then I am not infringing copyright by reproducing that text in the course of playing the game.)

 

[pemerton]

The original GSL required you to stop publishing content under the OGL. That part was removed eventually, but the damage was done.

Was it a rule about what could be published per se, or about mixing and matching? My memory is the latter, but my memory's not perfect.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Let’s say Wotc does as you say (I don’t think they can) and Dan distributes the 5.1 SRD under OGC 1.0 to you. What license do you, Pemerton, have to keep and use the copyrighted material?

Well it is OGL 1.0 but from my understanding of @pemerton's argument. If @permerton decides to distribute some derived work based on Dan's distribution of the SRD then his licence derives from Dan not from WoTC. He as no contractual connection to WoTC. Not sure if he as one with Dan.

 

[kenada]

Was it a rule about what could be published per se, or about mixing and matching? My memory is the latter, but my memory's not perfect.

I’ve not been able to find a copy of the original text, but the commentary online I have found suggests the original GSL required you to designate a product line as GSL, and once you did, you could not publish any OGL content in that line. According to the Wikipedia article, Evil Hat set up a separate company just to publish products under the GSL. Unfortunately, that company (One Bad Egg) no longer exists, and its URL points to porn spam now.

 

[FrogReaver]

Who's Dan?

If someone sells or gifts me a book that contains material that was licensed to the publisher under the OGL, I get the same rights to use the material as anyone else does who purchases any book: in the US that would be fair use, I think, which I would assume must be informed by the context. (Eg if some of the text is meant to be used to play a game, then I am not infringing copyright by reproducing that text in the course of playing the game.)

theres already arguments that fair use entails much of the OGC anyways, though that’s never really been tried to my knowledge. So I think bringing fair use in here muddies the waters for no particularly good reason.

 

[Reynard]

Same as OGL 1.0a according to WotC, 1.1 just is clearer about this

From the OGL v1.0a FAQ:

42. I want to distribute computer software using the OGL. Is that possible?

Yes, it's certainly possible. The most significant thing that will impact your effort is that you have to give all the recipients the right to extract and use any Open Game Content you've included in your application, and you have to clearly identify what part of the software is Open Game Content.

One way is to design your application so that all the Open Game Content resides in files that are human-readable (that is, in a format that can be opened and understood by a reasonable person). Another is to have all the data used by the program viewable somehow while the program runs.

Distributing the source code not an acceptable method of compliance. First off, most programming languages are not easy to understand if the user hasnÍt studied the language. Second, the source code is a separate entity from the executable file. The user must have access to the actual Open Content used.