The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Alzrius]

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

Whether or not it should be is probably less important, at least to attorneys, than whether it not it could be. Either way, it was enough of a change unto itself to justify a new iteration of the OGL.

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

I'm pretty sure that clarity is to avoid any legal implications.

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.

Well now I'm curious what actual content they used from those books. Anyone know?

 

[mamba]

I'm pretty sure that clarity is to avoid any legal implications.

I'm with Umbran on this, it avoids any legal dispute over this (similar to us arguing here over whether it makes a difference), but ultimately both mean the same and if there ever had been a legal dispute it would have found that too

 

[Voadam]

Well now I'm curious what actual content they used from those books. Anyone know?

I think Swords of Our Fathers is the Legendary Weapons rules in which some special magic items unlock more powers if you take special dedicated prestige classes devoted to using those items.

I am not familiar with Green Ronin's Mutants and Masterminds 1e specific stuff, but later editions have damage saves and I believe action points of one form or another (it has been a number of years since I played M&M 3e though). I don't see damage saves in the UA rules but there is an action point set of rules. The UA Generic Classes look a lot like Green Ronin's True20 classes.

I know I saw a lot of early era d20 stuff (Spycraft, a couple AEG games like Farscape and Stargate SG1 I believe) with vitality and wounds which is in 3.5 UA and WotC d20 Star Wars but I don't know the exact provenance of that stuff.

 

[Alzrius]

I'm with Umbran on this, it avoids any legal dispute over this (similar to us arguing here over whether it makes a difference), but ultimately both mean the same and if there ever had been a legal dispute it would have found that too

It's questionable if a court ruling would ever have found that the OGL v1.0 not mentioning registered trademarks in their Section 7, as opposed to just trademarks, meant that registered trademarks weren't covered. What's arguable is that the update doesn't necessarily constitute any additional restrictions on the license; even that's only relevant because the idea was put forward that no version of the OGL can have additional restrictions (beyond those of the original version of the license) without it being a Section 2 violation...which is clearly not the case, since WotC's announcement of what the OGL v1.1 will contain already makes mention of several types of additional restrictions.

 

[Hussar]

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.

How would you not be tracking the sales of each of your titles? I mean that quite literally. It would be impossible not to know the sales of different titles.

 

[Bedrockgames]

How would you not be tracking the sales of each of your titles? I mean that quite literally. It would be impossible not to know the sales of different titles.

That isn’t what meant. You track individual titles but you are not necessarily grouping your sales by OGL, non OGL, etc. The point is that if you aren’t, you do have to take the extra step of organizing your sales by those categories, then the step of sending a report to WOTC. But my concern would be less about the book keeping, as that is fairly easy, and more about giving WOTC my sales info.

 

[Hussar]

That isn’t what meant. You track individual titles but you are not necessarily grouping your sales by OGL, non OGL, etc. The point is that if you aren’t, you do have to take the extra step of organizing your sales by those categories, then the step of sending a report to WOTC. But my concern would be less about the book keeping, as that is fairly easy, and more about giving WOTC my sales info.

But, so far, all we know is that the only information they want is, "Did you have sales over 50k?" It's not like they are asking for individual breakdowns of each title.

 

[mamba]

But, so far, all we know is that the only information they want is, "Did you have sales over 50k?" It's not like they are asking for individual breakdowns of each title.

what difference does that make to what Bedrockgames said

 

[Bedrockgames]

But, so far, all we know is that the only information they want is, "Did you have sales over 50k?" It's not like they are asking for individual breakdowns of each title.

It says report OGL related revenue if you make over 50k. That might mean they want specific titles or it may mean they just want a total amount. It does still mean you need to tally your OGL revenue as a separate step if you meet the threshold, and even if they just want a total, that is information many publishers may not want to share with WOTC (again I am not affected nor do I intend to put out One D&D material, but if I did, and if I met the threshold, the reporting requirement would give me pause). Others might react differently. I am not saying there is a right or wrong response to the news. I think it is very understandable though if some publishers are concerned or cautious

 

[Hussar]

I'm sorry, but, I'm having a really difficult time understanding why total sales would matter. Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N. As far as we know, that's the only thing they are asking. Anything else is just speculation.

To be honest, I have no idea why they are asking this really. I can't see how the information would be useful. About the only way I could think of it being used is they would make that line sort of the trigger line where they might take a second look at the OGL material to make sure that it's kosher. Anyone with sales of less than 50k wouldn't be big enough to bother checking, but, if you have sales over 50k, they might want to give it a second pass.

Other than that, I don't see the point of it to be honest. And, fair enough, I can see that it's ruffling feathers. I do actually rather hope that they drop this line, or, at least, explain why they are doing it. And, frankly, it had better be a pretty good explanation or the midden is going to hit the windmill.