The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Morrus]

The new license prevents sub-licensing, so no 3pp's can use anyone else's OGC under the new license. That's to the best of my understanding anyway.

Huh. I don't understand why they're calling it an update to the OGL then.

OK, I do understand why.

 

[Nylanfs]

In the (leaked, not released) Non-Commercial license, there's the share-alike provision. In the Commercial license, your content is not open. Only Wizards can use it (more accurately, only Wizards can decide who uses it).

This is incorrect, Creator C can't use your "Licensed Content" without a separate contract with Creator B. Creator A of course being WotC, that both B & C are using WotC's Licensed Content. according to how I read it.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is incorrect, Creator C can't use your "Licensed Content" without a separate contract with Creator B. Creator A of course being WotC, that both B & C are using WotC's Licensed Content. according to how I read it.

I'm honestly pretty much over it, but here's what the (leaked) license says. There's no "separate contract" with other creators that I can see.

V. SHARE-ALIKE. We are letting You use Licensed Content for free because You are using it on a non-commercial basis. If you want to better protect your ownership, You may register under the OGL: Commercial. You agree that others can do the same with Your work.
This means:
A. Each time You distribute or otherwise make Your work available, You offer the recipient a license to the work on the same terms and conditions granted You under this license.
B. You may not impose upon others any terms that alter, restrict or otherwise change the terms of this license or the recipient’s exercise of the rights granted under this license.
C. You must distribute a copy of the license alongside Your work. For clarity, the license should probably appear either at the front or the back of Your book – but it must be in the book.
D. The version of the license You enclose with Your work must be this license. You must keep intact all notices that refer to it and You must keep its disclaimer of warranties.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm honestly pretty much over it, but here's what the (leaked) license says. There's no "separate contract" with other creators that I can see.

V. SHARE-ALIKE. We are letting You use Licensed Content for free because You are using it on a non-commercial basis. If you want to better protect your ownership, You may register under the OGL: Commercial. You agree that others can do the same with Your work.
This means:
A. Each time You distribute or otherwise make Your work available, You offer the recipient a license to the work on the same terms and conditions granted You under this license.
B. You may not impose upon others any terms that alter, restrict or otherwise change the terms of this license or the recipient’s exercise of the rights granted under this license.
C. You must distribute a copy of the license alongside Your work. For clarity, the license should probably appear either at the front or the back of Your book – but it must be in the book.
D. The version of the license You enclose with Your work must be this license. You must keep intact all notices that refer to it and You must keep its disclaimer of warranties.

That's only the NON-commercial version to be clear in case anyone doesn't get that from the text.

The commercial version has no share-alike clause.

 

[Greg Benage]

That's only the NON-commercial version to be clear in case anyone doesn't get that from the text.

I thought that was what @Nylanfs was saying I'm wrong about, but now I don't know. Anyway.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I thought that was what @Nylanfs was saying I'm wrong about, but now I don't know. Anyway.

I mean, I can't state this clearly enough - anyone telling you the share-alike applies to the commercial licence either hasn't read the OGL 1.1, or has failed to parse the text in the document. 100% it is only in the non-commercial.

 

[Nylanfs]

That's only the NON-commercial version to be clear in case anyone doesn't get that from the text.

The commercial version has no share-alike clause.

Yes, I should have clarified I did mean the commercial license (since there may or may not be having two going forward). WotC stating that you CAN'T relicense your OWN copyrighted material is completely mindblowing. That would be tantamount to saying that you do not have copyright to your own material at all. Not just giving WotC a perpetual license to reused your material.

 

[Greg Benage]

Yes, I should have clarified I did mean the commercial license (since there may or may not be having two going forward). WotC stating that you CAN'T relicense your OWN copyrighted material is completely mindblowing.

It's cool, but then I'm still not clear what I was incorrect about. The commercial license most definitely isn't open: only Wizards decides who can use your stuff. I never suggested otherwise, I don't think.

 

[Nylanfs]

It's cool, but then I'm still not clear what I was incorrect about. The commercial license most definitely isn't open: only Wizards decides who can use your stuff. I never suggested otherwise, I don't think.

I was referring to your statement that "only Wizards can decide how to use it" in that OGL: Commercial licensees (not non-commercial) Creator B has to be able to license their OWN copyrighted Licensed Material to Creator C, without Creator A getting pissy about it. Because I can NOT imagine a lawyer taking a look at that and saying to their boss that that was a legal strategy.

 

[mamba]

If you want to better protect your ownership, You may register under the OGL: Commercial. You agree that others can do the same with Your work.

Does that mean if I publish anything under non-commercial, anyone can take it and publish it under commercial and benefit from that?