Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8866954" data-attributes="member: 10531">Yes -- but WotC is perfectly free to name the new license the Open Game License 1.1.WotC can then have the having the OGL 1.1 discuss several classes of content -- including the existing "Product Identity" and "Open Game Content" classes, and adding, just to invent a random term, "Speculative Example Content" for the new SRD. And in the OGL 1.1, WotC could provide a set of rules for using and combining both "Open Game Content" and "Speculative Example Content", where the result of the combination is "Speculative Example Content" that has to adhere to the rules for "Speculative Example Content" in the OGL 1.1. And then, because they named the new license the Open Game License 1.1, the entire universe of Open Game Content can be imported, under Section 9 of the OGL 1.0a, to be used in products under the OGL 1.1.  After all, anyone who release anything as Open Game Content under the Open Game License 1.0a released that content under the terms that "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."But the SRD released as "Speculative Example Content" can't be taken back for use under the OGL 1.0a, because the OGL 1.0a has no clauses dealing with "Speculative Example Content".Now, it is possible that a court would dislike this and say something about it. You'd have to talk to a lawyer about that. And trying to speculate about that in advance of even seeing the terms of the OGL 1.1 strikes me as too disconnected from the facts to be fruitful.But an outright hijacking of Open Game Content was actually a subject of discussion on the now-defunct Open Gaming Foundation mailing lists back when we all saw the first draft version of the Open Game License. Those discussions very much included people pointing out the update clause could be exploited by WotC to take OGC and use it in selfish ways. Indeed, the whole OGL thing was very shortly after (and inspired by) the Netscape Public License release and discusssion (I participated in some of the NPL discussions, too, on Netscape's privately-hosted newsgroup created just for the discussion), and the NPL was explicit about Netscape being able to take outside contributions under the NPL and do whatever proprietary thing they liked with it. Everybody at that time understood the OGL with update clause was unequal; that it gave WotC a whole bunch of power to use Open Game Content as it saw fit, and that WotC might very well use that power when new executives were in charge.In general, that wasn't seen as that big of deal. WotC was getting power over third party Open Game Content, but it was releasing the whole new edition of D&D for that power. But there was concern, under the ".01" draft of the update clause, that a new OGL could be used by WotC to seize exclusive control of Open Game Content. And that's when Dancey responded with the "any authorized version" line <a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20000407064740/http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/ogl.html" target="_blank">in the ".02" draft</a>. WotC would have the power with the update clause to release a new version of the OGL that gave it the right to use Open Game Content in new, potentially selfish ways, but everybody else would still be able to use then-existing Open Game Content under the original terms, forever.</blockquote>

Verification