The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

One can have an opinion. As long as it is not stated as fact.

I mean We can get into the realm of scientific facts or historical facts where there are cold hard facts, but most everything else is just an opinion that most likely is being stated as fact.

i don’t particularly mind if someone says something disputable without adding IMO. I don’t need them to acknowledge it’s their opinion in order to dispute their belief. If they do add IMO then I am much less likely to dispute whatever it was (and others seem to be as well), which tends to make more pleasant online conversation when IMO is acknowledged, but otherwise it’s lack isn’t a concern or issue.


IMO

 

[FrogReaver]

Agreed. Ever notice how accusations of "you haven't read it therefore you are wrong about it" are almost never accompanied about any specifics about what you are wrong about?

Yep and it’s why It always comes off as gatekeeping to me.

If I have an incorrect opinion about something you change my mind by listening to my points and offering evidence to the contrary. If the points are convincing enough then eventually my mind will change, it’s usually not an instantaneous process though. However, Telling me my opinion isn’t valid because I haven’t met your requirements to have one just kicks me out of the conversation and hardens my incorrect opinion because I’m less likely to listen to people and those sharing similar opinions to me that treat me badly.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I mean We can get into the realm of scientific facts or historical facts where there are cold hard facts, but most everything else is just an opinion that most likely is being stated as fact.

i don’t particularly mind if someone says something disputable without adding IMO. I don’t need them to acknowledge it’s their opinion in order to dispute their belief. If they do add IMO then I am much less likely to dispute whatever it was (and others seem to be as well), which tends to make more pleasant online conversation when IMO is acknowledged, but otherwise it’s lack isn’t a concern or issue.


IMO

That is ok for me. But so do I state my opinion. And thus I point out what I see as baseless speculation. Or what I see as rant.

 

[FrogReaver]

That is ok for me. But so do I state my opinion. And thus I point out what I see as baseless speculation. Or what I see as rant.

I'd expect people to push back alot on claims that their opinion is baseless. There's a vast gulf between speculation and baseless speculation.

Example of baseless speculation: I think WOTC is going to quadruple the price of their books tomorrow!

Example of speculation that isn't baseless: WOTC stated they want to monetize D&D more, these are some ways in which they may do that and based on my perception of WOTC's statement in the context of my experiences with other companies saying similar, etc, I think they will choose method X to increase monetization. - speculation sure, but baseless - nah.

 

[Hussar]

Even if that were true, making a version of the OGL that is not open is a pretty huge deal. And we can be reasonably confident that that is not true (for example, filing your taxes does not require you to account for whether income is OGL-related in an jurisdiction I am aware of).

Of course it is. Your income from an OGL product that you sold to someone is going to be listed separately from your income from your day job. You don't just list one single income line on your taxes. Different sources of income are broken out for tax purposes - after all, did you pay pension (if you're Canadian for example) on your OGL sales? GST? State or provincial sales taxes?

What state lets you lump all your income together in one big ball without explaining where each part comes from?

 

[FrogReaver]

Of course it is. Your income from an OGL product that you sold to someone is going to be listed separately from your income from your day job. You don't just list one single income line on your taxes. Different sources of income are broken out for tax purposes - after all, did you pay pension (if you're Canadian for example) on your OGL sales? GST? State or provincial sales taxes?

What state lets you lump all your income together in one big ball without explaining where each part comes from?

If you sale OGL and non-OGL products none of your taxes on any level (federal, state, local) are going to break that out. The tax man don't care if you sold an OGL based product or not, they just care how much you made from selling products.

You are correct that such income will be differentiated from the income you earn on your job - but that's as far as that breakdown is going to go.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'd expect people to push back alot on claims that their opinion is baseless. There's a vast gulf between speculation and baseless speculation.

Yes. But right now, we see a lot of baseless specualtion. As soon as we see what is actually written in the OGL 1.1, we have some base to talk about.

When we finally see how the reporting system works, we have some more base. And when they finally tell us how their stance about using the oler OGL is, we might stop speculating.

The creator badge could just be a sign that what you do is semi official. You might even use: compatible with OneDnD. This will help customers decide if something is actually worth something.
That does not mean in any way, that most 3rd party things are worth their money. But with the openness of the old OGL, there are grifters...

One thing going for the GSL for 4e (which someone posted) was that it disallowed things like book of erotic fantasy that appeared to be halfway official...

So there are a multitude of ways, how the new OGL might benefit the customers of 3rd party tools, and I hate the narrative many youtube videos try to propagate...

... that wotc is an evil corporation that just creates junk and sells it to clueless people who just don't know better...

... which is not only offending towards wotc, but every customer that decides to stick with D&D, because they like the system and have not found something that is really better.

(Not even LevelUp is strictly better. It is more detailed. If I had the time to immerse myself more into the system, I would probably use it... but right now... no chance...)

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. But right now, we see a lot of baseless specualtion. As soon as we see what is actually written in the OGL 1.1, we have some base to talk about.

We already have a base to talk about. WOTC announced OGL 1.1 is adding royalties and reporting. They also announced they wanted to increase monetization of D&D.

We also have the knowledge of what we've seen other companies that make such statements most often end up doing. It's rarely consumer friendly. Now we don't know exactly what WOTC will do, but that doesn't make speculation about it baseless.

When we finally see how the reporting system works, we have some more base. And when they finally tell us how their stance about using the oler OGL is, we might stop speculating.

Most of us view WOTC trying to put their hands into 3rd party businesses via income and product reporting requirements as not good. All the details are going to do is show is whether it's just bad or really bad.

The creator badge could just be a sign that what you do is semi official. You might even use: compatible with OneDnD. This will help customers decide if something is actually worth something.
That does not mean in any way, that most 3rd party things are worth their money. But with the openness of the old OGL, there are grifters...

One thing going for the GSL for 4e (which someone posted) was that it disallowed things like book of erotic fantasy that appeared to be halfway official...

So there are a multitude of ways, how the new OGL might benefit the customers of 3rd party tools, and I hate the narrative many youtube videos try to propagate...

Just saying - the things you list here have much less basis than almost anything else speculated on in this thread. Are you actually against speculation or just speculation you don't like?

... that wotc is an evil corporation that just creates junk and sells it to clueless people who just don't know better...

... which is not only offending towards wotc, but every customer that decides to stick with D&D, because they like the system and have not found something that is really better.

WOTC also sells Magic the Gathering. If you are not aware of what they did there then read up on it. It's bad, 'evil' as you say. Pure corporate greed that actively harmed the game.

Keep in mind, most of the people being critical about the OGL 1.1 changes and the more monetization announcement actually like 5e D&D.

 

[Hussar]

If you sale OGL and non-OGL products none of your taxes on any level (federal, state, local) are going to break that out. The tax man don't care if you sold an OGL based product or not, they just care how much you made from selling products.

You are correct that such income will be differentiated from the income you earn on your job - but that's as far as that breakdown is going to go.

But you are still going to know how much of each of your titles you sold.

And you are going to have to know that to report your income.

 

[Alzrius]

The OP is possibly wrong about why OGL 1.0A and OGL 1.1 are potentially incompatible, but they are not wrong about the incompatibility (section 2 says you may not add extra restrictions and releasing it under OGL 1.1 would be adding extra restrictions). IANAL, TINLA.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I disagree with you here. Section 2 says that you can't add any extra terms, which means that if you publish something under the OGL v1.0a, you can't add, for example, a Section 16 which reads "You agree to only publish products in Comic Sans font." You have to use the existing terms as they are, and can't alter them.

But as the last part of Section 2 says, that's only for "this License." The OGL v1.1, when it comes out, will be its own license, a new iteration of the OGL put out by WotC, and they can make it have whatever terms they want.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Just saying - the things you list here have much less basis than almost anything else speculated on in this thread. Are you actually against speculation or just speculation you don't like? (1)


WOTC also sells Magic the Gathering. If you are not aware of what they did there then read up on it. It's bad, 'evil' as you say. Pure corporate greed that actively harmed the game. (2)

Keep in mind, most of the people being critical about the OGL 1.1 changes and the more monetization announcement actually like 5e D&D. (3)

1) I hate the spreaded negativity. So I did speculate as you do. You can speculate. I can speculate. From my point of view both positions are equaly valid until we know more.

2) I tried to read it up. I could not find anything evil. Maybe I missed something, but if you refer to putting out the 1k set you can't use to play, no that is about as evil as selling a sheet of linen with some paint on it for 1k...

3) Not from what I gathered. Some people have hate against WotC or corporations in general. Some people have reasons for leaving no good word on 5e. The video attached to the opening post was just ramble how much he hates 5e. Sad...

So, speculate as much as you like. But right now, IMO we have not seen enough to draw our pitchforks and torches.

We could actually benefit from more monetization. It means they produce things we want, for prices we can afford.

 

[mamba]

Yes. But right now, we see a lot of baseless specualtion. As soon as we see what is actually written in the OGL 1.1, we have some base to talk about.

the announcement gave us a basis already

That does not mean in any way, that most 3rd party things are worth their money. But with the openness of the old OGL, there are grifters…

define grifter, right now all that comes to mind is ‘products I think are not worth their price’

One thing going for the GSL for 4e (which someone posted) was that it disallowed things like book of erotic fantasy that appeared to be halfway official...

I do not see that as a positive, just as one more negative. I would not buy it, much like there is a lot of other stuff I am not interested in, but I have no problem with it existing and someone else getting use out of it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

i don’t particularly mind if someone says something disputable without adding IMO. I don’t need them to acknowledge it’s their opinion in order to dispute their belief. If they do add IMO then I am much less likely to dispute whatever it was (and others seem to be as well), which tends to make more pleasant online conversation when IMO is acknowledged, but otherwise it’s lack isn’t a concern or issue.

this has come up a lot. I have had people tell me I need facts to back up things I think, and when I present the ideas that lead me to believe these things they say it isn't evidence under some standard.

Now plenty of people try to state facts. Plenty of people just state what they think and feel. The issue becomes that somehow here on enworld (and it appears only here not on onex path form not on tic tok or FB) become a 'gotcha' to say "you can't prove that as if it were a scientific reviewed paper"

 

[FrogReaver]

this has come up a lot. I have had people tell me I need facts to back up things I think, and when I present the ideas that lead me to believe these things they say it isn't evidence under some standard.

Now plenty of people try to state facts. Plenty of people just state what they think and feel. The issue becomes that somehow here on enworld (and it appears only here not on onex path form not on tic tok or FB) become a 'gotcha' to say "you can't prove that as if it were a scientific reviewed paper"

I think it’s a forum medium thing. Happened a lot on religious discussion forums I used to post on too.

 

[glass]

But you are still going to know how much of each of your titles you sold.

Yes of course, but you collate that information in a way required for taxation. And again, separately, in the way that is required for OGL 1.1. Which is based on a subset of income which, despite your protestation to the contrary, is not a subset that you need to care about for any other purpose (including OGL 1.0A). Could well be on a separate reporting period too.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I disagree with you here. Section 2 says that you can't add any extra terms, which means that if you publish something under the OGL v1.0a, you can't add, for example, a Section 16 which reads "You agree to only publish products in Comic Sans font." You have to use the existing terms as they are, and can't alter them.

But as the last part of Section 2 says, that's only for "this License." The OGL v1.1, when it comes out, will be its own license, a new iteration of the OGL put out by WotC, and they can make it have whatever terms they want.

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

Okay, but the what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a? Is that is violation of Section 2? Or is the key part the addition in 1.0a that prevents further alterations or additions?

 

[FrogReaver]

But you are still going to know how much of each of your titles you sold.

in the age of digital sales I think even if you didn’t know you would have easy access to this info. So if your point is that determining the amount of OGL 1.1 income to tell WOTC will not be a time consuming or difficult task then I agree.

 

[glass]

Okay, but the what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a? Is that is violation of Section 2? Or is the key part the addition in 1.0a that prevents further alterations or additions?

There is a comparison in one of the threads: AIUI, they tweaked the wording on a couple of things, but there is no practicable difference.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Yes of course, but you collate that information in a way required for taxation. And again, separately, in the way that is required for OGL 1.1. Which is based on a subset of income which, despite your protestation to the contrary, is not a subset that you need to care about for any other purpose (including OGL 1.0A). Could well be on a separate reporting period too.


It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

Section 2 of the OGL forbids adding anything to the license except as described by the license itself. And section 9. explicitly permits WotC to publish updated versions of the OGL.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

I don’t think that’s true legally. OGL 1.0a only prevents changes to itself.

I think there is an open legal question over whether such differences in an OGL 1.1 license would legally be considered a version of OGL 1.0a but even that wouldn’t mean they can’t create whatever license terms in OGL 1.1 they want, if true it would just mean content under OGL 1.0a couldn’t move to also being licensable under an OGL 1.1 license without the author/copyright holders permission.