The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Hussar]

I agree that until we see the final draft it is speculative, but history has already repeated itself twice already (wotc revoking the d20 STL & the 4e GSL license), do we need a third time to see what happens next?

Context matters.

The STL was revoked in the very early days of d20 because of a very specific event (the book of Erotic Fantasy) and the result was that people realized pretty quickly that the STL wasn't actually needed. It also was a specific license to use THAT trademark and not the OGL.

The GLS was revoked at the end of 4e, after WotC had stopped publishing anything for 4e and was generally regarded as a total failure from the outset.

And, again, NOT the OGL.

So, no, your examples are not "history repeating itself". They are examples of completely different licenses to the to OGL being revoked in situations which are completely different than the current one.

 

[Art Waring]

So, no, your examples are not "history repeating itself"

In the context that the new 1.1 OGL is not likely to be truly "open," and will likely contain new limitations not included in the 1.0a, it is indeed history repeating itself like with the 4e GSL, but under a new "1.1 OGL" name.

Different name, same intention. History repeats itself.

 

[mamba]

Yes, because requiring an email when you put something up for publication (let them know what you're offering for sale) and a once a year report of how much you made from selling OGL material (a number you will have to know to file your taxes) is a huge deal?

because it is more than nothing, which you claimed was needed

 

[mamba]

It’s a weird term, right? WTH is a “creator product”? Judging by the weird name, it sounds like a “Not Actually D&D” mark of shame you gotta wear if you want to publish the next Pathfinder.

I am actually surprised it is required, I thought it was optional, i.e. if you create something for One D&D you probably want to include it as a way to point that out to prospective buyers, but if you create your own RPG under the OGL then that would be hugely weird / misleading

 

[mamba]

They are examples of completely different licenses to the to OGL being revoked in situations which are completely different than the current one.

We do not really know what the OGL 1.1 looks like, do not let the first three letters fool you. From all we know it can very well end up closer to the GSL than the OGL 1.0

 

[Hussar]

It could end up closer to the GSL. That is true. Unlikely, but true. And, if it does, I'll be right there with you complaining about it.

But, since we have no idea what it will actually look like, and the fact that it IS an OGL and not a new license, the precedent is that it will be open, it won't be a new GSL and most of the doom and gloom predictions here are just fabricated out of nothing.

 

[mamba]

It could end up closer to the GSL. That is true. Unlikely, but true. And, if it does, I'll be right there with you complaining about it.

see you in two weeks or so then Also, based on the announcement's terms the license is not actually an open license.

 

[darjr]

They will not want their badge on hateful or bigoted content.

I think they’d be nuts not to reserve the right to yank it from publishers.

If not then NuTSRs pet Nazi could use it.

 

[Art Waring]

It could end up closer to the GSL. That is true. Unlikely, but true. And, if it does, I'll be right there with you complaining about it.

But, since we have no idea what it will actually look like, and the fact that it IS an OGL and not a new license, the precedent is that it will be open, it won't be a new GSL and most of the doom and gloom predictions here are just fabricated out of nothing.

As much as I would agree that that is the best case scenario, their official statement has a lot to be concerned about for 3pp publishers. Yes it isn't released yet, but so far they have stated several things that I do find concerning.

Requiring a badge, & requiring income reporting and royalties: they don't sound like an open license (which don't require using trademarked badges, and certainly don't require income reports, or royalties of any amount). Even without speculating, it doesn't sound good at all. I think its fair to say that some folks are waiting for the release with some apprehension.

 

[Reynard]

Well, that's not entirely true. You couldn't produce whatever you wanted - you can't have beholders in your OGL adventure after all. The OGL isn't quite "an open environment with no input from or responsibility to WotC"

No. You were allowed to produce whatever you wanted based on the terms of the OGL and the contents of the SRD. it's disingenuous to bring up "beholders" as an example of how the control WotC is looking for now is the same as they were then. It's transparently not the same.