The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Alzrius]

Unearthed Arcana and the d20 Special Dragon Annual contained 3rd party OGC content (though I'm not quite sure if this was done specifically for that issue as no other products are mentioned in its license). But even Unearthed Arcana was nearly 20 years ago.

Did those actually reprint any existing Open Game Content, or did they simply introduce Open Game Content of their own?

 

[glass]

Again, that's not correct.

I think it is correct, obviously. And flat out telling me I am wrong does not get more persuasive with repetition.

That's an additional restriction, since trademarks and registered trademarks are different (and even have different symbols, the former being a delineated by a superscript TM while the latter is an R in a circle).

The article does not say what you say it says. The symbols are different, but the article you link does not say that registered trademarks are not trademarks. One is clearly a subset of the other.

Now, someone could conceivably argue that a blanket reference to "trademarks" is meant to be all trademarks, registered or not, but clearly someone at WotC didn't think so, since they made an entirely new version of the OGL to avoid that.

I do not think anyone would argue that registered trademarks are not in fact trademarks under normal circumstances. So it seems like they changed it simply for clarification.

Clearly WotC did not think it was a meaningful change, or they would not have rendered it meaningless by allowing you to continue to use 1.0 for material released under 1.0A.

Why would you do it separately? You have to know your sales of each product for tax purposes. You know which titles use the OGL and which don't. You also know which fiscal year those sales occurred in. I'm really not seeing the issue here.

Because each has its required information in its required format, and they will be different.

 

[Alzrius]

The article does not say what you say it says. The symbols are different, but the article you link does not say that registered trademarks are not trademarks. One is clearly a subset of the other.

I didn't say they that registered trademarks weren't trademarks, either; I said that they were different, which the article I linked to affirms.

I do not think anyone would argue that registered trademarks are not in fact trademarks under normal circumstances. So it seems like they changed it simply for clarification.

Again, I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it's beyond all imagination that someone could argue (in court, I mean) that a reference to trademarks could be taken as not referring to registered trademarks (notice that the actual Section 7 refers to "Trademarks" with a capital T, suggesting specificity). Even if you say that it's just for adding clarification, that could still be argued as potentially adding a new restriction...which is fine, since WotC can create new iterations of the OGL and add new restrictions to them (hence why they changed the actual license name from v1.0 to v1.0a) without it being a Section 2 violation.

Clearly WotC did not think it was a meaningful change, or they would not have rendered it meaningless by allowing you to continue to use 1.0 for material released under 1.0A.

I can't follow your reasoning here; Section 9 explicitly allows for Open Game Content released under one version of the license to be used under another version of the license. Questions of "meaningfulness" are moot.

 

[mamba]

Again, I'm no lawyer, but I don't think it's beyond all imagination that someone could argue (in court, I mean) that a reference to trademarks could be taken as not referring to registered trademarks (notice that the actual Section 7 refers to "Trademarks" with a capital T, suggesting specificity).

you can argue anything in court, the question is how far you get… I do not expect this one to stand a chance

I can't follow your reasoning here; Section 9 explicitly allows for Open Game Content released under one version of the license to be used under another version of the license. Questions of "meaningfulness" are moot.

which is why the theory here is that WotC will not designate any of the changes / additions in the new SRD as OGC.

 

[Alzrius]

you can argue anything in court, the question is how far you get… I do not expect this one to stand a chance

Clearly someone at WotC felt otherwise; hence the change from the OGL v1.0 to the OGL v1.0a, clarifying that Section 7 also applied to registered trademarks.

which is why the theory here is that WotC will not designate any of the changes / additions in the new SRD as OGC.

Sure, and that's possible. But any additional restrictions they add to the OGL v1.1 (such as the aforementioned reporting requirements, royalty requirement, etc.) won't be a violation of the Section 2 of the OGL v1.0 or v1.0a.

 

[mamba]

Clearly someone at WotC felt otherwise; hence the change from the OGL v1.0 to the OGL v1.0a, clarifying that Section 7 als applied to registered trademarks.

no idea, they could just have made that change for clarity, without any legal implications

Sure, and that's possible. But any additional restrictions they add to the OGL v1.1 (such as the aforementioned reporting requirements, royalty requirement, etc.) won't be a violation of the Section 2 of the OGL v1.0 or v1.0a.

agreed, WotC has the right to change the license, section 9 says so

 

[Voadam]

Did those actually reprint any existing Open Game Content, or did they simply introduce Open Game Content of their own?

From Unearthed Arcana:

15. COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Open Game License v 1.0 Copyright 2000, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.

System Reference Document Copyright 2000-2003, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Rich Baker, Andy Collins, David Noonan, Rich Redman, Bruce R. Cordell, based on original material by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.

Modern System Reference Document Copyright 2002, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Authors Bill Slavicsek, Jeff Grubb, Rich Redman, Charles Ryan, based on material by Jonathan Tweet, Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Richard Baker, Peter Adkison, Bruce R. Cordell, John Tynes, Andy Collins, and JD Wiker.

Swords of Our Fathers Copyright 2003, The Game Mechanics.

Mutants & Masterminds Copyright 2002, Green Ronin Publishing.

Unearthed Arcana Copyright 2004, Wizards of the Coast, Inc.; Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Noonan, Rich Redman.

 

[Jadeite]

Did those actually reprint any existing Open Game Content, or did they simply introduce Open Game Content of their own?

Monster Manual 2 definitely reprinted the Sandmasker as Scorpionfolk, though slightly adjusted since the first Creature Collection had some issues with its stats (as it was developed without access to the final rules).
Unearthed Arcana lists Mutans and Masterminds and Swords of our Fathers in its Section 15, but I'm currently unable if any material has been reprinted since I only own the 3.5 update of SooF.

 

[Bedrockgames]

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

And you are going to have to know that to report your income.

But you may not be tracking the difference of your OGL versus non-OGL titles unless you have a reason to do so. Personally I would not sign up for anything where I am providing that kind of information to a company, especially a publisher that is technically going to be a rival. Others may make a different choice there. granted I was never going to do a one D&D book in the first place, so unless this somehow retroactively impacts old OGL products, it isn’t an issue for me.

 

[Umbran]

Now, someone could conceivably argue that a blanket reference to "trademarks" is meant to be all trademarks, registered or not, but clearly someone at WotC didn't think so, since they made an entirely new version of the OGL to avoid that. Which means that yes, the OGL v1.0 didn't restrict you from indicating compatibility with registered trademarks, while the OGL v1.0a does. And yet there's clearly no Section 2 violation going on.

I don't think adding clarification should be read as a change in actual coverage.

"You know what? By just saying 'trademark' here, we leave ourselves open to some yahoo trying to argue that doesn't cover registered trademarks. While we would probably win that argument in court, we don't want to have to go to court over this, so let's please just close that possibility off."