The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[UngeheuerLich]

Just saying - the things you list here have much less basis than almost anything else speculated on in this thread. Are you actually against speculation or just speculation you don't like? (1)


WOTC also sells Magic the Gathering. If you are not aware of what they did there then read up on it. It's bad, 'evil' as you say. Pure corporate greed that actively harmed the game. (2)

Keep in mind, most of the people being critical about the OGL 1.1 changes and the more monetization announcement actually like 5e D&D. (3)

1) I hate the spreaded negativity. So I did speculate as you do. You can speculate. I can speculate. From my point of view both positions are equaly valid until we know more.

2) I tried to read it up. I could not find anything evil. Maybe I missed something, but if you refer to putting out the 1k set you can't use to play, no that is about as evil as selling a sheet of linen with some paint on it for 1k...

3) Not from what I gathered. Some people have hate against WotC or corporations in general. Some people have reasons for leaving no good word on 5e. The video attached to the opening post was just ramble how much he hates 5e. Sad...

So, speculate as much as you like. But right now, IMO we have not seen enough to draw our pitchforks and torches.

We could actually benefit from more monetization. It means they produce things we want, for prices we can afford.

 

[mamba]

Yes. But right now, we see a lot of baseless specualtion. As soon as we see what is actually written in the OGL 1.1, we have some base to talk about.

the announcement gave us a basis already

That does not mean in any way, that most 3rd party things are worth their money. But with the openness of the old OGL, there are grifters…

define grifter, right now all that comes to mind is ‘products I think are not worth their price’

One thing going for the GSL for 4e (which someone posted) was that it disallowed things like book of erotic fantasy that appeared to be halfway official...

I do not see that as a positive, just as one more negative. I would not buy it, much like there is a lot of other stuff I am not interested in, but I have no problem with it existing and someone else getting use out of it

 

[GMforPowergamers]

i don’t particularly mind if someone says something disputable without adding IMO. I don’t need them to acknowledge it’s their opinion in order to dispute their belief. If they do add IMO then I am much less likely to dispute whatever it was (and others seem to be as well), which tends to make more pleasant online conversation when IMO is acknowledged, but otherwise it’s lack isn’t a concern or issue.

this has come up a lot. I have had people tell me I need facts to back up things I think, and when I present the ideas that lead me to believe these things they say it isn't evidence under some standard.

Now plenty of people try to state facts. Plenty of people just state what they think and feel. The issue becomes that somehow here on enworld (and it appears only here not on onex path form not on tic tok or FB) become a 'gotcha' to say "you can't prove that as if it were a scientific reviewed paper"

 

[FrogReaver]

this has come up a lot. I have had people tell me I need facts to back up things I think, and when I present the ideas that lead me to believe these things they say it isn't evidence under some standard.

Now plenty of people try to state facts. Plenty of people just state what they think and feel. The issue becomes that somehow here on enworld (and it appears only here not on onex path form not on tic tok or FB) become a 'gotcha' to say "you can't prove that as if it were a scientific reviewed paper"

I think it’s a forum medium thing. Happened a lot on religious discussion forums I used to post on too.

 

[glass]

But you are still going to know how much of each of your titles you sold.

Yes of course, but you collate that information in a way required for taxation. And again, separately, in the way that is required for OGL 1.1. Which is based on a subset of income which, despite your protestation to the contrary, is not a subset that you need to care about for any other purpose (including OGL 1.0A). Could well be on a separate reporting period too.

I'm not a lawyer either, but I disagree with you here. Section 2 says that you can't add any extra terms, which means that if you publish something under the OGL v1.0a, you can't add, for example, a Section 16 which reads "You agree to only publish products in Comic Sans font." You have to use the existing terms as they are, and can't alter them.

But as the last part of Section 2 says, that's only for "this License." The OGL v1.1, when it comes out, will be its own license, a new iteration of the OGL put out by WotC, and they can make it have whatever terms they want.

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

 

[Baron Opal II]

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

Okay, but the what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a? Is that is violation of Section 2? Or is the key part the addition in 1.0a that prevents further alterations or additions?

 

[FrogReaver]

But you are still going to know how much of each of your titles you sold.

in the age of digital sales I think even if you didn’t know you would have easy access to this info. So if your point is that determining the amount of OGL 1.1 income to tell WOTC will not be a time consuming or difficult task then I agree.

 

[glass]

Okay, but the what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a? Is that is violation of Section 2? Or is the key part the addition in 1.0a that prevents further alterations or additions?

There is a comparison in one of the threads: AIUI, they tweaked the wording on a couple of things, but there is no practicable difference.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Yes of course, but you collate that information in a way required for taxation. And again, separately, in the way that is required for OGL 1.1. Which is based on a subset of income which, despite your protestation to the contrary, is not a subset that you need to care about for any other purpose (including OGL 1.0A). Could well be on a separate reporting period too.


It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

Section 2 of the OGL forbids adding anything to the license except as described by the license itself. And section 9. explicitly permits WotC to publish updated versions of the OGL.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't matter how you add extra restrictions to 1.0A content; a new section appended to the existing OGL or a whole new document (such as OGL 1.1). Either way is equally forbidden by s.2.

I don’t think that’s true legally. OGL 1.0a only prevents changes to itself.

I think there is an open legal question over whether such differences in an OGL 1.1 license would legally be considered a version of OGL 1.0a but even that wouldn’t mean they can’t create whatever license terms in OGL 1.1 they want, if true it would just mean content under OGL 1.0a couldn’t move to also being licensable under an OGL 1.1 license without the author/copyright holders permission.