The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[kenada]

Notably, the GSL also required registration before you could use it, much like the OGL v1.1 is apparently going to require. I seem to recall that once WotC moved on from 4E, they stopped accepting new registrations for the GSL, so no one else who wants to make compatible products for 4E under it can anymore.

That might be a thing for anyone leery of the OGL v1.1 now; based on the language used, at some point WotC might now allow for people to make third-party materials for it, albeit probably after they (WotC) have moved on to yet another new edition of D&D.

Yeah, definitely. I hesitated to bring up the possibility of a poison pill because it’s inflammatory, but I’ve since seen it mentioned on Twitter by a few people (e.g., Jason Bulmahn and Justin Alexander), so I guess it’s already being talked about.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I'm still uncertain on the 1D&D SRD point: if they release it under the OGL 1.1, and OGL 1.1 is in fact a new version of the same OGL license, then is the 1D&D SRD also available for use via OLG 1.0 and 1.0a by virtue of Section 9?

It’s not clear cut, but most here find the arguments and principles in favor of that much more legally strong than the ones against.

*most of us are not lawyers either.

That is the way the betting is going here, but would depend on what a judge made of it.

 

[FrogReaver]

@S'mon, however, is a lawyer and apparently the resident expert, so I'd go with his assessment... which seems to boil down to "Probably, depending on the judge, and how far Wizards goes to distinguish the new license from the old, so they would be well advised not to call it 'OGL 1.1.'"

Mind you, if I were a 3PP debating whether to try using the 1D&D SRD under OGL 1.0, I would not find this answer very reassuring. You want a little more certainty when your business is at stake. That in itself might be enough to keep anyone from making the attempt.

Exactly!! We should trust @S’mon because he mostly agrees with me. Absolutely no bias there on my part

And I agree with the rest.

 

[kenada]

Here is the poison pill version of the GSL.

Note there was a big thread here about the gsl

Wayback Machine

Section 4 of that GSL is almost identical to what WotC is saying they want to “clarify” in the OGL 1.1. Are they really going to try to pass off something like the GSL as a new version of the OGL?

 

[FrogReaver]

That is the way the betting is going here, but would depend on what a judge made of it.

If this was d&d we would just bribe or threaten the judge

 

[UngainlyTitan]

If this was d&d we would just bribe or threaten the judge

Mind control followed by modify memory. Unless judges sit in a circle of antimagic or sum such.

 

[FrogReaver]

Mind control followed by modify memory. Unless judges sit in a circle of antimagic or sum such.

My life clerics god must have offered him a perpetual irrevocable license… he sure kills a lot of people in the name of life.

 

[Dausuul]

to me it very much sounds like he is arguing against this point. Since the license can be revoked (according to him, not in reality).

This is the crux of the argument: He is drawing a distinction between revoking the license (which all agree cannot be done) and withdrawing the offer of the license.

In other words: Wizards has made me, and the rest of the world, an offer by releasing the SRD under the OGL. By making a copy of the SRD, or some part thereof, and publishing it with the OGL notice, I accept that offer and become a licensee, and Wizards can never revoke my license. But until I do that, I am not a licensee, and Wizards can withdraw its offer to me at any time.

At least, that is the claim. I am not myself a lawyer, so I can't assess the validity of it.

 

[kenada]

If this was d&d we would just bribe or threaten the judge

We could also have the bard seduce WotC into just using the OGL 1.0a. If they don’t like that, they shouldn’t have given bards expertise.

 

[Reynard]

My life clerics god must have offered him a perpetual irrevocable license… he sure kills a lot of people in the name of life.

Mistranslation: the original god of LIVES, specifically taking them.