Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="glass" data-source="post: 8875341" data-attributes="member: 12251">The OP is possibly wrong about why OGL 1.0A and OGL 1.1 are potentially incompatible, but they are not wrong about the incompatibility (section 2 says you may not add extra restrictions and releasing it under OGL 1.1 would be adding extra restrictions). IANAL, TINLA.Can we have a moratorium on this phrase please? This is an elfgame forum; anything on a "sky falling" level would obviously be off topic and probably against the rules. There is plenty of room for this to be a bad thing for consumers, for 3PP, and I suspect for WotC too without reaching that mythical standard.Since PI is explicitly not Open Content, that is not a restriction on doing what you please with Open Content. There are restrictions of course, by definition because it is a licence rather than just releasing stuff as PD, but that is not one of them.That is not the minimum they could require (which is "nothing", as per the current OGL). It is also not the minimum they have announced, given the requirement "let [WotC] know what you’re offering for sale".I do not think WotC's recent and proposed actions will kill D&D, but I do think they will put quite a dent in it.Which is another point against this change. WotC already have one closed licence which has been pretty successful. Why do they need to turn the OGL into another?I can easily see how it counts as a negative for WotC. OTOH, I cannot see how it counts as "support for OneD&D", which was the matter in question.Not true. If the OGL 1.1 is implemented as announced, everyone using it for commercial products will have to keep track of their OGL-related sales for compliance reasons, even if they do not actually hit the threshold (which is 50k not 700). Plus the vague but potentially terrifying requiremnents to pre-register and tell them "what you’re offering for sale" which are not revenue-dependant.Even if that were true, making a version of the OGL that is not open is a pretty huge deal. And we can be reasonably confident that that is not true (for example, filing your taxes does not require you to account for whether income is OGL-related in an jurisdiction I am aware of).Including any and all definitions that are descriptively useful.It says nothing of the sort. It says the "licensed content"; there is not requirement stated or even implied for the licensed content to be the whole game.Agreed. Ever notice how accusations of "you haven't read it therefore you are wrong about it" are almost never accompanied about any specifics about what you are wrong about?</blockquote>

Verification