The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Art Waring]

I'll post this here so that folks can see what the Open Gaming Foundation defines as an open license:

The Open Gaming Foundation believes that a license must provide for two important features in order to be an Open Game license.


1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.


The first requirement precludes an Open Gaming License from placing any limitation on the licensed content beyond those necessary to enforce the terms of the license itself. This prohibition includes a restriction against commercial distribution, a requirement for review or approval, the payment of a fee of any kind to a 3rd party, or any other term that would seek to limit the free use of the licensed material.


The second requirement means that the license must have a mechanism to ensure that the rights it grants cannot be taken away, either by the original contributor of the material, of the copyright holder of the license text itself, by an action taken on behalf of a 3rd party, or any other process.

 

[FrogReaver]

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 comment on why section 2 of the OGL requires that kind of notice be attached to all OGC?

I guess presumably it could be for a similar reason?

 

[Alzrius]

Did he happen to comment on why section 2 of the OGL requires that kind of notice be attached to all OGC?

I guess presumably it could be for a similar reason?

I probably should have asked him that, but I didn't think to.

 

[bedir than]

which ones do you consider that to be ?

I consider it much closer to open than closed. But I also refuse to think that this is a binary situation.

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.

I haven't claimed that it actually is open. I've stated that it is closer to the ideal of an open license than it is to the 'ideal' of a closed license.

 

[Art Waring]

I haven't claimed that it actually is open. I've stated that it is closer to the ideal of an open license than it is to the 'ideal' of a closed license.

You are of course free to amend your original statement, but I quoted your original words, which were that its "actually really open." see your quote below.

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.

You are of course again free to speculate as to the "ideal" of the license, however you are still ignoring the clear fact that requiring the reporting of income and the payment of royalties are the exact opposite of an open license according to the OGF.

I will quote it again so that you can read it because it is relevant to the conversation.

The Open Gaming Foundation believes that a license must provide for two important features in order to be an Open Game license.


1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.
2. The license must ensure that material distributed using the license cannot have those permissions restricted in the future.


The first requirement precludes an Open Gaming License from placing any limitation on the licensed content beyond those necessary to enforce the terms of the license itself. This prohibition includes a restriction against commercial distribution, a requirement for review or approval, the payment of a fee of any kind to a 3rd party, or any other term that would seek to limit the free use of the licensed material.


The second requirement means that the license must have a mechanism to ensure that the rights it grants cannot be taken away, either by the original contributor of the material, of the copyright holder of the license text itself, by an action taken on behalf of a 3rd party, or any other process.

 

[bedir than]

You are of course free to amend your original statement, but I quoted your original words, which were that its "actually really open." see your quote below.


You are of course again free to speculate as to the "ideal" of the license, however you are still ignoring the clear fact that requiring the reporting of income and the payment of royalties are the exact opposite of an open license according to the OGF.

I will quote it again so that you can read it because it is relevant to the conversation.

By the letter of the OGF statement you quoted the current OGL is not an open license.

So I guess you win. there are zero open licenses for D&D

 

[Art Waring]

By the letter of the OGF statement you quoted the current OGL is not an open license.

So I guess you win. there are zero open licenses for D&D

Um, no, they list the 1.0a OGL as one of several open licenses which they list on their website, its right there on the OGF list.

 

[bedir than]

Um, no, they list the 1.0a OGL as one of several open licenses which they list on their website, its right there on the OGF list.

In your binary worldview either point one matters or it doesn't

1. The license must allow game rules and materials that use game rules to be freely copied, modified and distributed.

Not every material using game rules is permitted to be freely copied, modified and distributed. There is an entire section that defines what is Open Gaming Content and what is not.

It seems rather silly to get into this level of pedantry about any OGL. But, those screaming about how the OGL 1.1 is absolute afront to the fans of the game are doing this.

What makes sense is to wait to see the actual OGL 1.1, discuss the ramifications to publishers at different scales as well as to the ramifications for people who enjoy the game.

It certainly won't be as dire as the OP here has claimed, calling for a revolution against Wizards of the Coast. It certainly won't be a massive money maker for Wizards either, no matter what they think. There's pennies at stake, considering less than two dozen companies qualify for the most limited version of 1.1

 

[Art Waring]

In your binary worldview either point one matters or it doesn't



Not every material using game rules is permitted to be freely copied, modified and distributed. There is an entire section that defines what is Open Gaming Content and what is not.

It seems rather silly to get into this level of pedantry about any OGL. But, those screaming about how the OGL 1.1 is absolute afront to the fans of the game are doing this.

What makes sense is to wait to see the actual OGL 1.1, discuss the ramifications to publishers at different scales as well as to the ramifications for people who enjoy the game.

It certainly won't be as dire as the OP here has claimed, calling for a revolution against Wizards of the Coast. It certainly won't be a massive money maker for Wizards either, no matter what they think. There's pennies at stake, considering less than two dozen companies qualify for the most limited version of 1.1

Its cool man, but I am seeing a lot of hyperbole here, I think its fair to say that you don't agree, but no need to try and win an argument, because I don't care about any of that.

I care about being clear about what constitutes an open license and what doesn't, that has nothing to do with what you claim is my "binary world view" so take it easy man. Its not polite to make assumptions like that, lets try and keep things civil.

(I tend to see most of life in shades of grey BTW, but legal contracts are another matter entirely).

What I am talking about has to do with the legal wording of the license, which has very little room for grey area, either a license works as an open lcense or it doesn't. That doesn't mean I look at the entire world like its monochromatic, black or white, or all striped in plaid.

Glad to have conversed with you...

 

[mamba]

I consider it much closer to open than closed. But I also refuse to think that this is a binary situation.

it isn't binary, nobody said that it is. But at the time you definitely were focusing on which side of the divide it falls on

If we want to act in a binary, the original D&D OGL isn't open.