The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[GMforPowergamers]

You are ignoring the explicit wording in Section 9.

yeah you are losing with me on this... telling me that something I don't understand (and I have clearly said that a dozen times by now) is something I am ignoring is a great way for me to assume the other guys points are better. I am not ignoring anything. I don't understand and am trying to hear you out and ask you to clarify.

They can only close off the 1D&D SRD if they make OGL 1.1 an explicitly different license.

so as long as it says it is OGL1.1 that is what matters?
Would OGL2.0 change that?
Would OGL B change that
Is it just a nameing thing? Does that number/name matter?
If they called the new one 1D&D OGL instead of Dungeons and Dragons OGL matter?

More to the point they don't have any reason to.

okay but that isn't any thing to go by. People do dumb things all the time that are not in there best interest. I have worked with people who purposely released a product that would cost more to make then they were selling it for just so there customers would buy that AND the other products they sold instead of going to a competitor. (think of it as a petty loss leader)
I also have seen (although not been on the job in the company) watched as big competitors drive smaller ones out of business' for no reason at all, the added income is a rounding error...

They aren't after Grim Press level money. They are trying to tie 1D&D to their platform model-- Beyond and the VTT. That they specifically called out non book, non PDF support for D&D all but proves that (with the repeated caveat that OGL 1.1 is obviously not complete and we know they are talking to at least some 3PPs).

right, we don't have the actual text yet. However I am trying to understand what is and isn't possible.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

That said, the issue you bring up regarding "sublicensing" (which as a term only comes up in Section 13, noting that all such sublicenses shall survive termination if you fail to comply with the license), presuming I'm understanding you correctly, looks to be predicated on the idea that a 1D&D SRD is a "derivative work" of an existing SRD (presumably one of the two published for 5E). That's a possible interpretation, but I'm not necessarily sure that would be the case, at least insofar as the definition in Section 1(b) is concerned; one could say that such a 1D&D SRD is an independent creation, particularly since WotC (as owner of both SRDs) would be in a position to assert whether or not the development of one required "translation [...] potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment," or other form of recasting, transforming, or adapting of the other.

I said it before and I will again, I have 3pp 4e books that used the 3e SRD/OGL, so I know it can at least be argued that it would work...

 

[see]

This is the part I don't understand... and it appears there are people arguing both ways. Is teh OGL always able to use every SRD.

Literally, no, the OGL is not able to use every SRD; the "4th Edition System Reference Document", for example, was only usable with the Game System License.

The interesting question becomes if the new SRD is designated "Open Game Content" under the OGL 1.1. The question then becomes, does the OGL 1.1 only apply, or can I use the OGL 1.0a for this Open Game Content? And that isn't actually particularly obvious. The OGL 1.0a is not a law; it does not automatically cover material that is simply called Open Game Content. The new "Open Game Content" was released under the OGL 1.1, not the OGL 1.0a. But if I'm already a licensee under the OGL 1.0a, and WotC releases something they call "Open Game Content", it is possible that I can use the new "Open Game Content" under the existing license. This is particularly true since WotC drafted both licenses, and ambiguities in contract law are supposed to be resolved in favor of the non-drafting party.

Thus, as I've mentioned previously, I expect that WotC will simply not designate the new SRD "Open Game Content". Avoiding that label simply cuts off all the arguments. If it's not Open Game Content, the OGL 1.0a can't apply.

 

[Reynard]

so as long as it says it is OGL1.1 that is what matters?
Would OGL2.0 change that?
Would OGL B change that
Is it just a nameing thing? Does that number/name matter?
If they called the new one 1D&D OGL instead of Dungeons and Dragons OGL matter?

I am not a lawyer but I guess they would have to make it clear in a legal way that it was not a different version of the OGL. The simplest method would seem to me to not call it OGL x.x. but, lawyers being lawyers, maybe there's a different way to get it done.

 

[Reynard]

Literally, no, the OGL is not able to use every SRD; the "4th Edition System Reference Document", for example, was only usable with the Game System License.

The interesting question becomes if the new SRD is designated "Open Game Content" under the OGL 1.1. The question then becomes, does the OGL 1.1 only apply, or can I use the OGL 1.0a for this Open Game Content? And that isn't actually particularly obvious. The OGL 1.0a is not a law; it does not automatically cover material that is simply called Open Game Content. The new "Open Game Content" was released under the OGL 1.1, not the OGL 1.0a. But if I'm already a licensee under the OGL 1.0a, and WotC releases something they call "Open Game Content", it is possible that I can use the new "Open Game Content" under the existing license. This is particularly true since WotC drafted both licenses, and ambiguities in contract law are supposed to be resolved in favor of the non-drafting party.

Thus, as I've mentioned previously, I expect that WotC will simply not designate the new SRD "Open Game Content". Avoiding that label simply cuts off all the arguments. If it's not Open Game Content, the OGL 1.0a can't apply.

If they do that they need a new license that explains what that SRD is.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The question then becomes, does the OGL 1.1 only apply, or can I use the OGL 1.0a for this Open Game Content? And that isn't actually particularly obvious. The OGL 1.0a is not a law; it does not automatically cover material that is simply called Open Game Content. The new "Open Game Content" was released under the OGL 1.1, not the OGL 1.0a.

yeah, that is what I (and by the sounds of things others) are confused about.

Thus, as I've mentioned previously, I expect that WotC will simply not designate the new SRD "Open Game Content". Avoiding that label simply cuts off all the arguments. If it's not Open Game Content, the OGL 1.0a can't apply.

but how does there being a new elf, or new cleric interact with that?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

If they do that they need a new license that explains what that SRD is.

that makes sense.

 

[DarkCrisis]

So, what does this mean for 3rd party adventurers. Best campaign I ran for 5E was a 3rd party off kickstarter.

How does this effect (if at all) streamed games like Critical Role and lesser streams?

 

[robconley]

can you dumb this down for me? Like pretend you are talking to a kid... does this mean this will somehow retroactively stop someone from useing the old OGL?

No, the old OGL license grant is perpetual i.e. forever. The problem is going forward. It will split the D&D 3PP hobby into two or three groups unable to share (or distribute0 any of their content whether it is for free or for sale. Except for those using OGL 1.0a, the other one or two groups (OGL 1.1, DM's Guild) will be in the walled gardens, and if they want to leave they will have to leave all their work behind. Not just the actual book itself, but anything they have an idea for that is based on the book.

 

[Reynard]

No, the old OGL license grant is perpetual i.e. forever. The problem is going forward. It will split the D&D 3PP hobby into two or three groups unable to share (or distribute0 any of their content whether it is for free or for sale. Except for those using OGL 1.0a, the other one or two groups (OGL 1.1, DM's Guild) will be in the walled gardens, and if they want to leave they will have to leave all their work behind. Not just the actual book itself, but anything they have an idea for that is based on the book.

The DMsGuild has nothing to do with the OGL aside from them being specifically incompatible, and a new version of the OGL wouldn't split anything -- that would take a new GSL type license. Say what you want about Dancey but he was dedicated to open gaming at the time and he and his team crafted a robust license to make it happen.