The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Umbran]

Who's Dan?

If someone sells or gifts me a book that contains material that was licensed to the publisher under the OGL, I get the same rights to use the material as anyone else does who purchases any book: in the US that would be fair use, I think, which I would assume must be informed by the context.

You get more than that.
"10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute."

And, that copy of the license includes the same offer and acceptance previously noted, so the license is self perpetuating. Every use of the license includes an offer to use the license.

Just in case you haven't reviewed the license itself recently, you can find a copy of it here: Open Game License v1.0a

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

It's to bad WotC took this route.

If they had said they would make a trimmed down SRD, much like the current one, under the OGL 1.0a for the new revision of D&D but also had this other thing that came with a much more comprehensive SRD, maybe the whole game, for licenses. Then sweetened it with access to DNDBeyond. I'm sure the reception, at least, would have been much better.

I could even see some folks taking them up on the offer.

My experience with the gaming community, as well as experiences with humans in general, tell me that it's likely wishful thinking that the reception would be any better.

And I'll tell you why: where does most of the open discussion and feelings in either direction seem to be coming from? Where's the heat, as it were? I'd say generally by people who will not publish anything under any system of anyone's creation. Yes, some content creators have weighed in either way, some have chosen to keep quiet until its all finalized.

All one has to do is look back at various changes suggested or implemented with D&D as of late to see how reception goes, probably back to... Tasha's? YMMV

 

[Umbran]

All WotC withdrawing their offer means is no one NEW gets to enter into the license. it doesn't undo the previous ones.

Have I missed where someone has clarified how they can withdraw the offer, given that the license contains the offer and explicitly can't be altered?

"2. ...No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself."

So, section 3, which contains the offer and acceptance terms, can't be removed?

 

[S'mon]

So Matt Finch used the permission that Wizards gave on the d20 SRD to make Swords and Wizardry. I turn use the Matt's permission on Swords & Wizardry to make the Majestic Fantasy RPG. Joe who in turn modifies the MF RPG and gives that to Steve. Then as @pemerton theorizes Wizards withdraw the offer of the d20 SRD. Since Wizards wasn't involved between Me and Matt, or Me and Joe what is the implication here if any?

No legal implication for you, you still have your licence derived from Matt's licence. Matt's licence remains valid for him too.

 

[Morrus]

A copyright license is not a contract.

A licensing agreement is a type of contract.

 

[Greg Benage]

On the second point, I don't know, there seems a fair argument either way. If I were the judge I'd probably rule that by choosing to label the new licence OGL 1.1, and releasing the new SRD under that, the terms of OGL 1.0 apply to the new SRD material too, by the wording of section 9.

The terms of OGL 1.0 would apply (we think) to "the new SRD material," as long as that material is designated as "Open Game Content" as defined in OGL 1.0. Right? Nothing stops Wizards from releasing an SRD with a bunch of material that is not designated as Open Game Content.

 

[Reynard]

Have I missed where someone has clarified how they can withdraw the offer, given that the license contains the offer and explicitly can't be altered?

"2. ...No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself."

So, section 3, which contains the offer and acceptance terms, can't be removed?

I was just answering the hypothetical without arguing that point, since while it seems unlikely to me it's possible, I don't know enough to be able to say.

 

[Alzrius]

The terms of OGL 1.0 would apply (we think) to "the new SRD material," as long as that material is designated as "Open Game Content" as defined in OGL 1.0. Right? Nothing stops Wizards from releasing an SRD with a bunch of material that is not designated as Open Game Content.

Sure, but why would they do that? I mean, if there's material that they don't want people referencing (with regard to what can be reproduced under the Open Game License), why bother putting it in the SRD at all? An SRD isn't a document you pay for anyway, so if people can't reproduce it under the OGL anyway, just put the non-Open material in a pay-for book like any other retail product.

 

[Lanefan]

The OGL 1.0 itself.

They can stop to release new material under this license, but everything released under it, will remain released and available under it forever

Yes, and it's that new material I'm talking about. I know they can't stop what's already out there.

no, they cannot. End of story, nothing else to say.

This directly contradicts what you say just above. They either can stop new material coming out under 1.0 or 1.0a or they can't; you just said both are true, and both cannot be true at the same time.

 

[Lanefan]

Under the OGL, everyone who has entered into the licence with WotC has permission, which cannot be revoked, to distribute WotC's SRD as OGC. So you don't need to "get in before the lock".

You say "...everyone who has [already] entered into the licence..." - what about those who have not yet entered into the licence, who as yet have no relations of any kind with WotC other than having purchased some of their products?

This is what I mean when I say get in before the lock - if by the time 1.1 comes out you're not already using 1.0 or 1.0a and they decide to revoke 1.0a (which would, I presume, drag 1.0 down with it) you would seem to be stuck with 1.1.