OGL The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I don't think adding clarification should be read as a change in actual coverage.
Whether or not it should be is probably less important, at least to attorneys, than whether it not it could be. Either way, it was enough of a change unto itself to justify a new iteration of the OGL.
no idea, they could just have made that change for clarity, without any legal implications
I'm pretty sure that clarity is to avoid any legal implications.
Unearthed Arcana lists Mutans and Masterminds and Swords of our Fathers in its Section 15, but I'm currently unable if any material has been reprinted since I only own the 3.5 update of SooF.
Well now I'm curious what actual content they used from those books. Anyone know?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Hero
I'm pretty sure that clarity is to avoid any legal implications.
I'm with Umbran on this, it avoids any legal dispute over this (similar to us arguing here over whether it makes a difference), but ultimately both mean the same and if there ever had been a legal dispute it would have found that too
 

Voadam

Legend
Well now I'm curious what actual content they used from those books. Anyone know?

I think Swords of Our Fathers is the Legendary Weapons rules in which some special magic items unlock more powers if you take special dedicated prestige classes devoted to using those items.

I am not familiar with Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds 1e specific stuff, but later editions have damage saves and I believe action points of one form or another (it has been a number of years since I played M&M 3e though). I don't see damage saves in the UA rules but there is an action point set of rules. The UA Generic Classes look a lot like Green Ronin's True20 classes.

I know I saw a lot of early era d20 stuff (Spycraft, a couple AEG games like Farscape and Stargate SG1 I believe) with vitality and wounds which is in 3.5 UA and WotC d20 Star Wars but I don't know the exact provenance of that stuff.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I'm with Umbran on this, it avoids any legal dispute over this (similar to us arguing here over whether it makes a difference), but ultimately both mean the same and if there ever had been a legal dispute it would have found that too
It's questionable if a court ruling would ever have found that the OGL v1.0 not mentioning registered trademarks in their Section 7, as opposed to just trademarks, meant that registered trademarks weren't covered. What's arguable is that the update doesn't necessarily constitute any additional restrictions on the license; even that's only relevant because the idea was put forward that no version of the OGL can have additional restrictions (beyond those of the original version of the license) without it being a Section 2 violation...which is clearly not the case, since WotC's announcement of what the OGL v1.1 will contain already makes mention of several types of additional restrictions.
 

Hussar

Legend
But you may not be tracking the difference of your OGL versus non-OGL titles unless you have a reason to do so. Personally I would not sign up for anything where I am providing that kind of information to a company, especially a publisher that is technically going to be a rival. Others may make a different choice there. granted I was never going to do a one D&D book in the first place, so unless this somehow retroactively impacts old OGL products, it isn’t an issue for me.

How would you not be tracking the sales of each of your titles? I mean that quite literally. It would be impossible not to know the sales of different titles.
 

How would you not be tracking the sales of each of your titles? I mean that quite literally. It would be impossible not to know the sales of different titles.

That isn’t what meant. You track individual titles but you are not necessarily grouping your sales by OGL, non OGL, etc. The point is that if you aren’t, you do have to take the extra step of organizing your sales by those categories, then the step of sending a report to WOTC. But my concern would be less about the book keeping, as that is fairly easy, and more about giving WOTC my sales info.
 

Hussar

Legend
That isn’t what meant. You track individual titles but you are not necessarily grouping your sales by OGL, non OGL, etc. The point is that if you aren’t, you do have to take the extra step of organizing your sales by those categories, then the step of sending a report to WOTC. But my concern would be less about the book keeping, as that is fairly easy, and more about giving WOTC my sales info.
But, so far, all we know is that the only information they want is, "Did you have sales over 50k?" It's not like they are asking for individual breakdowns of each title.
 


But, so far, all we know is that the only information they want is, "Did you have sales over 50k?" It's not like they are asking for individual breakdowns of each title.
It says report OGL related revenue if you make over 50k. That might mean they want specific titles or it may mean they just want a total amount. It does still mean you need to tally your OGL revenue as a separate step if you meet the threshold, and even if they just want a total, that is information many publishers may not want to share with WOTC (again I am not affected nor do I intend to put out One D&D material, but if I did, and if I met the threshold, the reporting requirement would give me pause). Others might react differently. I am not saying there is a right or wrong response to the news. I think it is very understandable though if some publishers are concerned or cautious
 

Hussar

Legend
I'm sorry, but, I'm having a really difficult time understanding why total sales would matter. Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N. As far as we know, that's the only thing they are asking. Anything else is just speculation.

To be honest, I have no idea why they are asking this really. I can't see how the information would be useful. About the only way I could think of it being used is they would make that line sort of the trigger line where they might take a second look at the OGL material to make sure that it's kosher. Anyone with sales of less than 50k wouldn't be big enough to bother checking, but, if you have sales over 50k, they might want to give it a second pass.

Other than that, I don't see the point of it to be honest. And, fair enough, I can see that it's ruffling feathers. I do actually rather hope that they drop this line, or, at least, explain why they are doing it. And, frankly, it had better be a pretty good explanation or the midden is going to hit the windmill.
 

mamba

Hero
I'm sorry, but, I'm having a really difficult time understanding why total sales would matter. Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N. As far as we know, that's the only thing they are asking. Anything else is just speculation.
we know no such thing, all we know is that there are two thresholds. We have no idea what they will actually be asking, they said nothing about that. They certainly did not say that this is all they are asking
To be honest, I have no idea why they are asking this really. I can't see how the information would be useful. About the only way I could think of it being used is they would make that line sort of the trigger line where they might take a second look at the OGL material to make sure that it's kosher. Anyone with sales of less than 50k wouldn't be big enough to bother checking, but, if you have sales over 50k, they might want to give it a second pass.
The license currently has no way of retracting it, so are you suggesting that WotC will add a clause that let's them decide that your product does not meet whatever standards and it can force you to stop publishing ?

That certainly goes beyond anything they announced, pointing this out since you seem to be so keen on sticking to what they said ;)
 
Last edited:

Voadam

Legend
I'm sorry, but, I'm having a really difficult time understanding why total sales would matter. Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N. As far as we know, that's the only thing they are asking. Anything else is just speculation.
What they have said they will require is:

"Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)"

I don't take that as "report yes no whether you make more than $50K", but "if you make more than 50K then report to WotC your annual OGL-related revenue."
 

I'm sorry, but, I'm having a really difficult time understanding why total sales would matter. Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N. As far as we know, that's the only thing they are asking. Anything else is just speculation.

Because you are giving them information about your sales. I am still not clear on whether that 50K threshold is for all of your revenue from RPGs or just your revenue from OGL. But both cases give WOTC information companies might want to keep to themselves. The best case scenario you are giving WOTC market research information they can use. The worst case scenario you are giving them information about your sales that they can use to compete against you with similar products (and there are other reasons a company might not want another publisher knowing their sales total for OGL related revenue). The other issue is it creates a relationship with WOTC that companies might not want to have. You are now in a position of reporting to them, and being required to do so under the terms of the license (again provided you meet the threshold). And even the companies that don't report are effectively letting WOTC know they aren't making over 50K (which again can be important). Granted this only impacts people participating in the current OGL for One D&D. But the point I think a lot of folks are making isn't that companies should absolutely not do this, but that many will probably have to seriously consider whether they should do it or not. Like I said before, every publisher is going to react differently. Some might have exactly the reaction you are, which is they won't see it as a big deal and happily go along with it. Others may be more concerned. It is a business so people are going to be cagey even if there are no hidden intentions with the reporting.
 

Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N.

Just to reiterate what Voadam said, my reading of it is this isn't a simple did you make over 50K did you make over 750 K, but also includes the requirement that if you did, you need to report your OGL revenue to them (and in the case of 750 K pay some amount of royalties to them).
 

Incenjucar

Legend
One concern I have as someone unlikely to ever need to report anything is how securely this information will be stored. Hasbro is the kind of company that gets targeted for hacking by people looking for lost media and sneak previews of products and whatnot, so there's a real chance of this data getting leaked.
 

Hussar

Legend
we know no such thing, all we know is that there are two thresholds. We have no idea what they will actually be asking, they said nothing about that. They certainly did not say that this is all they are asking

The license currently has no way of retracting it, so are you suggesting that WotC will add a clause that let's them decide that your product does not meet whatever standards and it can force you to stop publishing ?

That certainly goes beyond anything they announced, pointing this out since you seem to be so keen on sticking to what they said ;)
But, they could take a look at your product to see if you are actually following the OGL. If you aren't, then they could step up and tell you to stop - or to change your product so that it is compliant with the OGL.

Again, all we know is that they will require you to report income of over 50k. That's all we know. Now, you've interpreted that, just like you interpreted what I just said, in the absolute most negative way possible and have insisted that this is the only possible interpretation all the way along. Which is why I have tried very hard to disengage with you because you will simply twist anything said into the most negative way possible.
 

mamba

Hero
But, they could take a look at your product to see if you are actually following the OGL. If you aren't, then they could step up and tell you to stop - or to change your product so that it is compliant with the OGL.
yep, they could make sure you do not use content that is excluded from the license agreement. They do not need to change the license for that though

Again, all we know is that they will require you to report income of over 50k. That's all we know.
which, again, is different from saying they are only asking a simple Y/N question, like you keep on claiming

Now, you've interpreted that, just like you interpreted what I just said, in the absolute most negative way possible and have insisted that this is the only possible interpretation all the way along.
show me where I insisted this is the only possible interpretation, in any of my posts
 

Hussar

Legend
yep, they could make sure you do not use content that is excluded from the license agreement. They do not need to change the license for that though
True. But, knowing that a OGC producer is banging out 50k worth of OGC might warrant a second look, whereas someone who isn't just isn't worth the time or effort. As I said, I was just spit balling. I'm really not sure why they are asking this to be honest, and frankly, it seems like a waste of time. But, in the absence of any other explanation, I'm trying to think how this information might actually be used.

As far as competition goes, well, I'm not really sure that's an issue to be honest. AFAIK, no OGL product comes even close to the levels that WotC is selling. That WotC would need this information to go after an area for competition seems a bit of a stretch. Why bother? It's not like WOtC has really changed its publishing schedule in the past. Various big time Kickstarters certainly haven't rocked the boat - WotC continues doing the same thing it's done for the past ten years - a module or two a year and a splat book every couple of years.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
even that's only relevant because the idea was put forward that no version of the OGL can have additional restrictions (beyond those of the original version of the license) without it being a Section 2 violation...which is clearly not the case, since WotC's announcement of what the OGL v1.1 will contain already makes mention of several types of additional restrictions.
This is wrong. Section 2 only prevents changes to that particular license. So if you release a document under OGL 1.0a, the terms of 1.0a cannot be changed according to section 2. A new OGL, say 1.1 can have new restrictions as it is an entirely new OGL, so does not violate section 2 of 1.0a.

You could then release stuff under 1.0a OR 1.1, your choice.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
This is wrong. Section 2 only prevents changes to that particular license. So if you release a document under OGL 1.0a, the terms of 1.0a cannot be changed according to section 2. A new OGL, say 1.1 can have new restrictions as it is an entirely new OGL, so does not violate section 2 of 1.0a.

You could then release stuff under 1.0a OR 1.1, your choice.
That's what I've been saying.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top