The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[mamba]

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.

we know no such thing, all we know is that there are two thresholds. We have no idea what they will actually be asking, they said nothing about that. They certainly did not say that this is all they are asking

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.

The license currently has no way of retracting it, so are you suggesting that WotC will add a clause that let's them decide that your product does not meet whatever standards and it can force you to stop publishing ?

That certainly goes beyond anything they announced, pointing this out since you seem to be so keen on sticking to what they said

 

[Voadam]

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.

What they have said they will require is:

"Report OGL-related revenue annually (if you make more than $50,000 in a year)"

I don't take that as "report yes no whether you make more than $50K", but "if you make more than 50K then report to WotC your annual OGL-related revenue."

 

[Bedrockgames]

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.

Because you are giving them information about your sales. I am still not clear on whether that 50K threshold is for all of your revenue from RPGs or just your revenue from OGL. But both cases give WOTC information companies might want to keep to themselves. The best case scenario you are giving WOTC market research information they can use. The worst case scenario you are giving them information about your sales that they can use to compete against you with similar products (and there are other reasons a company might not want another publisher knowing their sales total for OGL related revenue). The other issue is it creates a relationship with WOTC that companies might not want to have. You are now in a position of reporting to them, and being required to do so under the terms of the license (again provided you meet the threshold). And even the companies that don't report are effectively letting WOTC know they aren't making over 50K (which again can be important). Granted this only impacts people participating in the current OGL for One D&D. But the point I think a lot of folks are making isn't that companies should absolutely not do this, but that many will probably have to seriously consider whether they should do it or not. Like I said before, every publisher is going to react differently. Some might have exactly the reaction you are, which is they won't see it as a big deal and happily go along with it. Others may be more concerned. It is a business so people are going to be cagey even if there are no hidden intentions with the reporting.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Particularly if it's simply a binary Y/N. Did you make over 50K Y/N. Did you make less than 700k Y/N.

Just to reiterate what Voadam said, my reading of it is this isn't a simple did you make over 50K did you make over 750 K, but also includes the requirement that if you did, you need to report your OGL revenue to them (and in the case of 750 K pay some amount of royalties to them).

 

[Incenjucar]

One concern I have as someone unlikely to ever need to report anything is how securely this information will be stored. Hasbro is the kind of company that gets targeted for hacking by people looking for lost media and sneak previews of products and whatnot, so there's a real chance of this data getting leaked.

 

[Hussar]

we know no such thing, all we know is that there are two thresholds. We have no idea what they will actually be asking, they said nothing about that. They certainly did not say that this is all they are asking

The license currently has no way of retracting it, so are you suggesting that WotC will add a clause that let's them decide that your product does not meet whatever standards and it can force you to stop publishing ?

That certainly goes beyond anything they announced, pointing this out since you seem to be so keen on sticking to what they said

But, they could take a look at your product to see if you are actually following the OGL. If you aren't, then they could step up and tell you to stop - or to change your product so that it is compliant with the OGL.

Again, all we know is that they will require you to report income of over 50k. That's all we know. Now, you've interpreted that, just like you interpreted what I just said, in the absolute most negative way possible and have insisted that this is the only possible interpretation all the way along. Which is why I have tried very hard to disengage with you because you will simply twist anything said into the most negative way possible.

 

[mamba]

But, they could take a look at your product to see if you are actually following the OGL. If you aren't, then they could step up and tell you to stop - or to change your product so that it is compliant with the OGL.

yep, they could make sure you do not use content that is excluded from the license agreement. They do not need to change the license for that though

Again, all we know is that they will require you to report income of over 50k. That's all we know.

which, again, is different from saying they are only asking a simple Y/N question, like you keep on claiming

Now, you've interpreted that, just like you interpreted what I just said, in the absolute most negative way possible and have insisted that this is the only possible interpretation all the way along.

show me where I insisted this is the only possible interpretation, in any of my posts

 

[Hussar]

yep, they could make sure you do not use content that is excluded from the license agreement. They do not need to change the license for that though

True. But, knowing that a OGC producer is banging out 50k worth of OGC might warrant a second look, whereas someone who isn't just isn't worth the time or effort. As I said, I was just spit balling. I'm really not sure why they are asking this to be honest, and frankly, it seems like a waste of time. But, in the absence of any other explanation, I'm trying to think how this information might actually be used.

As far as competition goes, well, I'm not really sure that's an issue to be honest. AFAIK, no OGL product comes even close to the levels that WotC is selling. That WotC would need this information to go after an area for competition seems a bit of a stretch. Why bother? It's not like WOtC has really changed its publishing schedule in the past. Various big time Kickstarters certainly haven't rocked the boat - WotC continues doing the same thing it's done for the past ten years - a module or two a year and a splat book every couple of years.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

This is wrong. Section 2 only prevents changes to that particular license. So if you release a document under OGL 1.0a, the terms of 1.0a cannot be changed according to section 2. A new OGL, say 1.1 can have new restrictions as it is an entirely new OGL, so does not violate section 2 of 1.0a.

You could then release stuff under 1.0a OR 1.1, your choice.

 

[Alzrius]

This is wrong. Section 2 only prevents changes to that particular license. So if you release a document under OGL 1.0a, the terms of 1.0a cannot be changed according to section 2. A new OGL, say 1.1 can have new restrictions as it is an entirely new OGL, so does not violate section 2 of 1.0a.

You could then release stuff under 1.0a OR 1.1, your choice.

That's what I've been saying.