The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

maybe I do, it does not mean public domain. Any open license comes with restrictions by its very nature. None of the ones the OGL 1.0 has make it not an open license.

You are correct. I was wrong. I read up more on open source software. There can be some requirements in place and something can still be open. Generally in open source software this would be differentiated by calling one more permissive and the other less permissive. That said openness is generally connotated with quite a bit of permissiveness - and thus at some point being to restrictive would cause people to stop calling something open. I no longer believe the few restrictions in OGL 1.0/1.0a make it so unpermissive that it ceases to be open.

So let’s cut to the chase again, show me the clause in the OGL that makes it not an open license and what condition of an open license definition it violates.

Do you agree that at some point having too many/too strict of requirements can mean something is not open?

 

[FrogReaver]

Can you show the same about the new OGL?

The royalty for OGL 1.1 would make it not open. Open is about being able to use, distribute and modify freely.

 

[Art Waring]

If all they do is allow a badge, requiring it at a certain volume and have a tiny royalty for big money making companies that's actually really open.

Talk to people writing for closed licenses about their struggles. OGL 1.1 is not a closed license, no matter how much people arguing on the internet insist it is.

Except you haven't seen the final draft of the 1.1 ogl, so how do you know that its "actually really open?"

A trademarked badge, reporting income, and royalties ARE NOT PART OF ANY OPEN LICENSE. One of the primary definitions of an open license is that its royalty free.

Calling it a "tiny royalty" when you don't even know what they will be charging is also disingenuous. The fact that they are changing the terms of the license should be enough of an indication that it isn't the same license as the 1.0 OGL.

I guess I'll repeat it because you keep repeating yourself:

Just because it says "1.1 OGL" does not mean that it is actually an open license.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm looking at this version - https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf - which likewise begins

That's the same URL i use.

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.0 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.​

That statement, as best I can tell, is WotC's statement of offer to license the SRD under the terms of the OGL. They are reserving their rights in the sense of stating that they grant the right to use their content solely pursuant to the OGL v 1.0a.

Since they grant the right to use OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a then wouldn't licensing OGC via a completely new license (not just an updated version) mean they are no longer granting rights to use the OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a?

This statement is not itself a component of, or a term of, the OGL. It doesn't confer rights on anyone. The rights that WotC is reserving are not rights that need to be granted - they are its rights in its IP.

Section 2 of the OGL mandates a statement similar to that one be added to all OGC. Doesn't that make it a term of the OGL?

 

[mamba]

Can you show the same about the new OGL?

no because it is not released yet, as you know, but as I mentioned earlier in another reply to you the fee would violate those requirements.

So you should already have known that too, or you do not care for my answers anyway. In either case there is not really much point in me replying / you asking.

I get it that you have taken on the role of the WotC shill or employee for whatever reason, but maybe be less annoying about it and do not ask me things I already told you in other posts, like your question is some kind of gotcha

 

[Reynard]

Since they grant the right to use OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a then wouldn't licensing OGC via a completely new license (not just an updated version) mean they are no longer granting rights to use the OGC solely through the OGL 1.0a?

I think you are over thinking it. this statement is attached to the SRD as a means to indicate that the SRD itself is NOT a document being released into the public domain. The SRD is only licensed by way of the OGL 1.0a -- not creative commons or anything else. In order to use it, you must use the OGL 1.0a. That's all. From there, the actual stipulations of OGL 1.0a take hold.

 

[mamba]

You are correct. I was wrong.

thanks, rare that anyone admits they were wrong these days, so I appreciate that

Do you agree that at some point having too many/too strict of requirements can mean something is not open?

of course, otherwise the word becomes meaningless

To me one such case is requiring a fee (hello OGL 1.1)

 

[Alzrius]

I think you are over thinking it. this statement is attached to the SRD as a means to indicate that the SRD itself is NOT a document being released into the public domain. The SRD is only licensed by way of the OGL 1.0a -- not creative commons or anything else. In order to use it, you must use the OGL 1.0a. That's all. From there, the actual stipulations of OGL 1.0a take hold.

For what it's worth, I spoke to an IP lawyer who I know through work, and he affirmed that in his judgment, that notice was just a boilerplate statement making it clear that the 5.1 SRD wasn't any sort of public domain work, rather than specifying that it was only meant to be used with a particular iteration of the OGL.

 

[Reynard]

For what it's worth, I spoke to an IP lawyer who I know through work, and he affirmed that in his judgment, that notice was just a boilerplate statement making it clear that the 5.1 SRD wasn't any sort of public domain work, rather than specifying that it was only meant to be used with a particular iteration of the OGL.

Did he happen to weigh in on whether "OGL 1.1" would actually be an new version of OGL 1.0a, or if it would have to be a new license given the changes?

 

[Alzrius]

Did he happen to weigh in on whether "OGL 1.1" would actually be an new version of OGL 1.0a, or if it would have to be a new license given the changes?

No, though to be fair that didn't really come up, outside of an allusion to needing to see the specific terms of the OGL v1.1 once it was released.