The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

Oh and that NFT bro, an OGL publisher and OGL NFT maker, would be just fine too.

lol, I am absolutely fine with him not being fine.

 

[darjr]

lol, I am absolutely fine with him not being fine.

Oh me too.

 

[Dausuul]

You say "...everyone who has [already] entered into the licence..." - what about those who have not yet entered into the licence, who as yet have no relations of any kind with WotC other than having purchased some of their products?

This is what I mean when I say get in before the lock - if by the time 1.1 comes out you're not already using 1.0 or 1.0a and they decide to revoke 1.0a (which would, I presume, drag 1.0 down with it) you would seem to be stuck with 1.1.

Without wading back into the debate over what Wizards could theoretically do if they could bend all existing licensees to their will... they can't, which means there is no need to "get in before the lock." You don't have to get your license direct from Wizards; you can sublicense from anyone with an existing license.

So, for example, you can go to d20srd.org, which has [edited: the 3.5E and 5E SRDs] available under the OGL. Pick your edition, grab the SRD, and go on your merry way. You become a licensee of d20srd.org, which is in turn a licensee of WotC, and you're set forever, no matter what Wizards or d20srd.org may do in future.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

And I too will repeat myself: I'm not talking about material already released!

I'm talking about material not yet released or even produced, by authors/publishers who have yet to enter those fields.

Since the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a cannot be revoked, they can be used on future products. Just like Paizo used the OGL 1.0 to make pathfinder when WotC moved to the GSL for 4e. Just like 3PP used the OGL 1.0 to make 5e content before there was a 5e SRD. We can still use the OGL 1.0a to make 5e content now and forever.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Since the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a cannot be revoked, they can be used on future products. Just like Paizo used the OGL 1.0 to make pathfinder when WotC moved to the GSL for 4e. Just like 3PP used the OGL 1.0 to make 5e content before there was a 5e SRD. We can still use the OGL 1.0a to make 5e content now and forever.

Indeed. In fact, I started working on 5e stuff with Depths of Felk Mor before 5e actually came out. Just look at the dates on the files lol

The (simplified) bottom line is this: Keep using 1.0 to keep doing whatever you've been doing, or use the new license if you want to use specific things from 1DnD that aren't included in the 1.0 OGL license.

 

[Greg Benage]

Sure, but why would they do that? I mean, if there's material that they don't want people referencing (with regard to what can be reproduced under the Open Game License), why bother putting it in the SRD at all?

So that they can designate certain material as a new content category that can be used under the terms of the 1.1 OGL but can't be used under the terms of previous OGLs.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think it's a matter of convenience. With the OGL, there's nothing stopping you from creating something effectively the same as a 1 DnD figher, cleric, or whatever. You just need to use your own terms. But with an SRD, it's convenient to cut and paste stuff you need or want.

 

[FrogReaver]

Without wading back into the debate over what Wizards could theoretically do if they could bend all existing licensees to their will... they can't, which means there is no need to "get in before the lock." You don't have to get your license direct from Wizards; you can sublicense from anyone with an existing license.

So, for example, you can go to d20srd.org, which has all three of Wizards's SRDs (3E, 3.5E, and 5E) available under the OGL. Pick your edition, grab the SRD, and go on your merry way. You become a licensee of d20srd.org, which is in turn a licensee of WotC, and you're set forever, no matter what Wizards or d20srd.org may do in future.

In regards to who is licensing the work -

The OGL 1.0 in section 4 says the "the contributors grant you a pretextual license...". In section 1 Contributors are defined as "copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content." In section 15 WOTC is indicated as the copyright holder of the SRD 5.1.

However, is section 13 it says that sublicenses shall survive the termination of this license.

To me it sounds like the license would be with WOTC and not non-affiliated party that chose to distribute the 5.1 SRD under the OGL 1.0. But I could be wrong as it's not clear what is meant by sublicenses to me.

Anyone have thoughts on this?

 

[pemerton]

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.

Yes with Dan. And perhaps indirectly with WotC - they have licensed Dan, and authorised Dan to sub-license to me. In a previous conversation about this with @S'mon (years ago now) he said that it's possible (in the sense of open to legal argument) that my arrangement with Dan also brings me into a contractual relationship with WotC. To me, this seems to depend on technical arguments about privity and agency where my expertise runs out, and so I defer to S'mon's understanding and intuitions.

The practical significance, as I understand things, is that in the Dan scenario I can't just name WotC and their SRD in my section 15 declaration. I'd need to name Dan and Dan's work also.

 

[Dausuul]

I think it's a matter of convenience. With the OGL, there's nothing stopping you from creating something effectively the same as a 1 DnD figher, cleric, or whatever. You just need to use your own terms. But with an SRD, it's convenient to cut and paste stuff you need or want.

It also means you don't have to worry about making a mistake and crossing the line into copyright violation when creating your "no serial numbers" versions of 1D&D content.