The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Art Waring]

Yeah, that doesn’t work for me, because if you call something OGL + higher version number then it is a newer version of the OGL and not something else, so have fun trying to argue your case in court and not being laughed out of it

I'm not arguing a case in court, and the OGL has never been tested in the court of law, either. I was asking a question, not proposing a legal argument. Other corporations have done similar things before with other "open" licenses that are not so open, but are presented as being open. Can I ask that question?

 

[mamba]

Can I ask that question?

you can ask any question you want to, I gave the answer that made the most sense to me

 

[Art Waring]

you can ask any question you want to, I gave the answer that made the most sense to me

Well I try my best to be civil on the forums, and have some kind of mutual respect seeing as were all here for the same thing. I guess its too much to ask that you do the same?

 

[kenada]

The blog post is misinterpreting the OGL, IMO, because it is interpreting the 1.1 OGL as an "update" to the OGL rather than a replacement like the 4e GSL.

I think people are getting hung on the "OGL" and "open" words in the title of the 1.1 OGL, but it is anything but open, and its function is completely separate from a true open license. Its wording is much closer to the closed off GSL.

When people are framing the new 1.1 OGL as an update, that simply isn't true. Its a replacement, and one that requires people to buy into the idea that its just an update, rather than the end of open content for dnd.

WotC discusses updating the OGL and what changes they are making in the post on D&D Beyond that explains the changes. It seems like more than a reasonable assumption that it’s an update when those are the words WotC used to describe what is being done.

 

[Art Waring]

WotC discusses updating the OGL and what changes they are making in the post on D&D Beyond that explains the changes. It seems like more than a reasonable assumption that it’s an update when those are the words WotC used to describe what is being done.

Fair enough. However, to the best of my memory, back in this thread someone did a comparison with the legal language of the 4e GSL and compared it to the new 1.1 OGL and found several similarities. Update or not, there are at least similarities in the initial press release to language used in the 4e GSL.

Of course we won't know the full details of the new 1.1 OGL until 2023, and this could be a beta test of the license to test initial responses from the community. All I am saying is that there are some apparent similarities.

 

[codo]

I missed that. Thanks.

My question, then, is why. The SRD won't be out until 1D&D drops at the earliest, right? Are they going to start releasing playtest material under OGL 1.1? That doesn't make sense if it is actually playtest material, since it is expected and intended to change.

What's the motivation for releasing the new OGL a full year or more in advance of the material it covers? Just to give 3PP a chance to comment?

Lots of people are confused and upset about the changes. Releasing the new OGL will at least let people understand the issue, instead of getting worked up about internet speculation. I don't think It will please everyone, and lots of people will still be upset, but at least they will be upset about real changes and not baseless internet fear mongering.

Its also really important for game designers who might be unsure if they want to develop for 1D&D or not, and if they do, under which license. You don't want to keep developers in limbo for a year and then dump a last minute surprise on them when the game comes out.

Bottom line, why not? People are going to be upset no matter what WotC does, they might as well rip the Band-Aid off now, rather than let people speculate and get worked up over internet rumors for a year.

 

[mamba]

Well I try my best to be civil on the forums, and have some kind of mutual respect seeing as were all here for the same thing. I guess its too much to ask that you do the same?

no, but I see nothing wrong with my answer. I said that your explanation doesn’t work for me and I doubt it would hold up in court (in fact it pretty much would be a non-starter).

If disagreeing with you is disrespectful to you, then I am afraid I might continue to be disrespectful.

 

[Reynard]

Its also really important for game designers who might be unsure if they want to develop for 1D&D or not, and if they do, under which license.

They can't really do that with 1D&D&D being in flux and incomplete with playtesting happening. Unless the new OGL comes out and they end the playtest simultaneously?

 

[Art Waring]

so have fun trying to argue your case in court and not being laughed out of it

That could be interpreted as disrespectful. You are free to disagree with anyones opinion as you want, but how about not being so dismissive?

 

[mamba]

That could be interpreted as disrespectful. You are free to disagree with anyones opinion as you want, but how about not being so dismissive?

that may be disrespectful of your opinion (or just a disagreement with it and not far from what would actually happen in this case), it is not disrespectful of you.

Would you have been ok with me writing ‘would not stand a chance in court’ instead of ‘would be laughed out of court’ ? To me they basically mean the same, so feel free to substitute the former for the latter