The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[pemerton]

everyone signing / accepting is granting them a perpetual license. Of course by the time this thing actually gets published that might have changed, but in the leaked version that is a thing

That licence is consideration granted as consideration for entering a contract, on the terms set out by the contract. If the contract comes to an end, so does the licence that it gives rise to. As best I can see, at least.

 

[Haiku Elvis]

But, you have the right to trademark and release certain content that is not OGL, too. If you create a new monster with a new name, you ahve a right to NO release it under the OGL. Under OGL 1.1, you no longer have that right.

I'm not so sure. Another part states you have to divide everything in the product down into what is and isn't covered under the new license and include that information within the product, so I believe you may be able break it down into "your side, my side"

 

[glass]

I can't follow your reasoning here; Section 9 explicitly allows for Open Game Content released under one version of the license to be used under another version of the license. Questions of "meaningfulness" are moot.

Probably moot now, given the recent leak which (if accurate) is even worse than either of us were envisaging. But for the record my logic was thus: If under 1.0 you could mention registered trademarks and 1.0A changed that (rather than merely clarifying it for readability purposes), then it would not actually change anything. Because anyone who wanted to refer to registered trademarks could simply use the older version. Therefore, closing a loophole could not have been WotC's motivation to spend time and money updating the licence. Therefore, I can only assume that clarity was.

 

[Xyxox]

Indestructoboy has a full copy and went over it on stream:

 

[Alzrius]

Indestructoboy has a full copy and went over it on stream:

Well, based on what we can see at 3:01:52, we can confirm the part about them no longer referring to Open Game Content as "Open Game Content." It's now "Licensed Content."

But it is not enough to simply include a statement that Your Licensed Work includes Licensed Content (what used to be called "Open Game Content"). If the only way a reader can distinguish what You created from what We did is to check Your Licensed Work against the SRD, You are not in compliance with this provision.

 

[Xyxox]

Well, based on what we can see at 3:01:52, we can confirm the part about them no longer referring to Open Game Content as "Open Game Content." It's now "Licensed Content."

Based on everything I've seen to date, I'll not be purchasing single item from any creator using one of those stinking creator badges.

 

[mamba]

Based on everything I've seen to date, I'll not be purchasing single item from any creator using one of those stinking creator badges.

How about not buying anything from WotC instead / in addition. The 3pp is the victim here

 

[Xyxox]

How about not buying anything from WotC instead / in addition. The 3pp is the victim here

I haven't bought anything from WotC since this mess started. I had been spending about $100/month since I went back to D&D in August.

 

[kenada]

How about not buying anything from WotC instead / in addition. The 3pp is the victim here

If the creator signs onto the OGL 1.1, they are promoting WotC’s agenda. Should they be rewarded for that?

 

[pemerton]

If the creator signs onto the OGL 1.1, they are promoting WotC’s agenda. Should they be rewarded for that?

I think if someone believes that the best commercial decision for them is to enter into a v 1.1 licence with WotC, that's ultimately their prerogative. For better or worse the RPG market is just that - a commercial market. I don't think that potential RPG publishers are obliged to suppress their own commercial interests in order to also undermine those of WotC.