The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[FrogReaver]

1. That was what you suggested. Reading the cover text and a few paragraphs. If I understood you wrong. Sorry.

I consider the leaving out my addition of reviews to that list of stuff i suggested to be the missing piece of the explanation.

2. I gave them the benefit of the doubt. From the reviews I read back then, people might not have read the core books.

Which is why i suggest to both look at the review and some of what the book itself says. If both seem to be in alignment then great. If not then you probably want to find another reviewer.

That still doesn't mean you need to read anywhere near the whole book to make an accurate assessment about it.

3. Yes. But it is something to keep in mind. In the case of 4e, there were a lot of baseless claims...

Yes and no. Most claims are opinions and the only baseless opinions are the ones I disagree with

 

[mamba]

But you are making up things. (As does Hussar*). Can we just wait a few days and see what is actually in the OGL 1.1.?

why? I already know that there are things in it that I am entirely against, because they announced them. I do not need to wait for the details to find out whether I will.
It’s like being told ‘yeah, but you do not know the exact shade of green your car will be in’ when I wanted a red one

As someone said, if you have objections, the time to speak out is before they release it, and I agree

We have enough baseless idiocy on youtube.

if you consider my comments baseless idiocy, I do not really know what to tell you. If you don’t, then what does this have to do with anything?

*but I like his ideas way nore than yours, because of positivity. Yours sounds too much like "omg, wotc hates us all".

really? All I am saying is that I do not like what they announced, what I do not like about it, wonder about how 3PPs will react to it, and pointing out that so far there is zero incentive for them to go with 1.1 over 1.0
Oh, and to point out that the risk reward ratio for this is not at all in favor of doing this from how I see it.

This is across all three or however many threads about this. At no point did I say anything about WotC

If I got you wrong, people who want to inform themselves about what is ups with no background knwledge could get you wrong too and now wotc might have a cutomer/3rdPary creator less, based on nothing. So I think Hussar giving contra was a good thing.

I have zero problem with him doing so, I got annoyed when he posted a one liner to which he already knew my answer and also knew that what he was asking me to provide was impossible

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I consider the leaving out my addition of reviews to that list of stuff i suggested to be the missing piece of the explanation.

I left the review out, because as far as I can see, writing a review based on a review is... bad practice...

I did not say, you do it, but this was what I was referring to.

Edit: regarding you:
I said: basing one's opinion entirely on the cover and a few paragraphs and some random reviews can work, it can also mean you miss something you would have liked.

 

[FrogReaver]

I left the review out, because as far as I can see, writing a review based on a review is... bad practice...

WHO is defending writing a review based solely on a review?

I did not say, you do it, but this was what I was referring to.

The rest of my post you didn't quote actually talked about just that. See below.

Which is why i suggest to both look at the review and some of what the book itself says. If both seem to be in alignment, then great. If not then you probably want to find another reviewer.

Like what are you even arguing with me about?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Like what are we even arguing about?

Probably nothing.

I just rejected, that it is a good idea to judge something by the cover and random reviews.

 

[FrogReaver]

Probably nothing.

I just rejected, that it is a good idea to judge something by the cover and random reviews.

And I reject the notion that one must buy a product (and/or read it in full) before one is allowed to have an opinion about it.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

And I reject the notion that one must buy a product (and/or read it in full) before one is allowed to have an opinion about it.

One can have an opinion. As long as it is not stated as fact.

 

[pemerton]

They own the copyright to all the material. They can place it together in different products however they want. So yes, you will see orcs under many licenses. I’m saying you will not see the SRD 5.1 itself under different licenses and to my knowledge it never has been issued under another license.

Likewise to the best of my knowledge.

But why would it be? As I understand it, he whole point of the SRD, compiled as it is, made available to the public, and then bifurcated into OCG and Product Identity, is to permit licensing of the OGC under the OGL v 1.0a.

 

[Morrus]

Likewise to the best of my knowledge.

But why would it be? As I understand it, he whole point of the SRD, compiled as it is, made available to the public, and then bifurcated into OCG and Product Identity, is to permit licensing of the OGC under the OGL v 1.0a.

Pretty much.

 

[glass]

No, that's not what Section 12 means. Moreover, Section 9 is pretty clear that you can use Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL with any other version of the OGL.

The OP is possibly wrong about why OGL 1.0A and OGL 1.1 are potentially incompatible, but they are not wrong about the incompatibility (section 2 says you may not add extra restrictions and releasing it under OGL 1.1 would be adding extra restrictions). IANAL, TINLA.

I'm not seeing how the sky is falling here.

Can we have a moratorium on this phrase please? This is an elfgame forum; anything on a "sky falling" level would obviously be off topic and probably against the rules. There is plenty of room for this to be a bad thing for consumers, for 3PP, and I suspect for WotC too without reaching that mythical standard.

No version of the OGL has been "open content meaning you can use it in the manner you see fit" - every version of the OGL to date has had multiple restrictions and conditions that a publisher must adhere to in order to be in compliance (not using Product Identity without express permission, for example)

Since PI is explicitly not Open Content, that is not a restriction on doing what you please with Open Content. There are restrictions of course, by definition because it is a licence rather than just releasing stuff as PD, but that is not one of them.

At a minimum you enter your revenue on their website (starting at 50k) and once the number you enter exceeds 750k they have a form on which you can transfer money to them, just like any webstore offers. They can even prefill the amount

That is not the minimum they could require (which is "nothing", as per the current OGL). It is also not the minimum they have announced, given the requirement "let [WotC] know what you’re offering for sale".

I’ve heard WotC and then Hasbro has been killing D&D for 22 years now.

I do not think WotC's recent and proposed actions will kill D&D, but I do think they will put quite a dent in it.

You don't need an OGL for DMs Guild, and it seems to have been pretty successful.

Which is another point against this change. WotC already have one closed licence which has been pretty successful. Why do they need to turn the OGL into another?

I am not a great fan of Pathfinder (having played it for a couple of years), but I cannot by any stretch of the imagination see how it can be interpreted as a negative...

I can easily see how it counts as a negative for WotC. OTOH, I cannot see how it counts as "support for OneD&D", which was the matter in question.

For those who publish OGC but make less than 700k - Nothing changed other than needing that Content Creator badge (see below)

Not true. If the OGL 1.1 is implemented as announced, everyone using it for commercial products will have to keep track of their OGL-related sales for compliance reasons, even if they do not actually hit the threshold (which is 50k not 700). Plus the vague but potentially terrifying requiremnents to pre-register and tell them "what you’re offering for sale" which are not revenue-dependant.

Yes, because requiring an email when you put something up for publication (let them know what you're offering for sale) and a once a year report of how much you made from selling OGL material (a number you will have to know to file your taxes) is a huge deal?

Even if that were true, making a version of the OGL that is not open is a pretty huge deal. And we can be reasonably confident that that is not true (for example, filing your taxes does not require you to account for whether income is OGL-related in an jurisdiction I am aware of).

several definitions of an open license require that there is no fee associated with the use...

Including any and all definitions that are descriptively useful.

The quote from the OGF says all of the game must be available via the license. In the original OGL that is untrue.

It says nothing of the sort. It says the "licensed content"; there is not requirement stated or even implied for the licensed content to be the whole game.

And I reject the notion that one must buy a product (and/or read it in full) before one is allowed to have an opinion about it.

Agreed. Ever notice how accusations of "you haven't read it therefore you are wrong about it" are almost never accompanied about any specifics about what you are wrong about?