The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[Malmuria]

Translation: if you want to build a character in onednd you might need to use dndbeyond instead of some third party app. The "freedom" mentioned in the OP is the freedom to sell an app. In the app store.
Or you can just use pencil and paper like some kind of monster.

 

[Mecheon]

Translation: if you want to build a character in onednd you might need to use dndbeyond instead of some third party app. The "freedom" mentioned in the OP is the freedom to sell an app. In the app store.
Or you can just use pencil and paper like some kind of monster.

I suspect there’ll be a black market of character builders that are totally not for 1D&D, wink wink, nudge nudge. But that’s only my suspicion

 

[kenada]

I find it hard to argue against that the major earners should pay some kind of royalty to WotC. That's a pretty high threshold. I can't think of anything that isn't pdfs and books that I have acquired. I think maps wouldn't be covered since it is not rules content. Outside the scope, really, as long as you're not making a copy of the Forgotten Realms.

If the 3e OGL had these terms, there would be no Pathfinder or OSR. It the 5.1 SRD did, it would mean no Solasta. This license is no more “open” than the source-aware licenses that charlatans try to push as “open” replacements for true FOSS licenses.

 

[Malmuria]

If the 3e OGL had these terms, there would be no Pathfinder or OSR.

how do you figure?

 

[Art Waring]

I myself am still puzzling through what this means, and I am probably less invested in the OGL and WOTC discussion than many others, but I also think it is fair for people to weigh in if they think the new terms signal a problem (I do have to admit it gives me late T$R vibes, but I don't know how grounded that is in anything, and probably won't know until this plays out further).

One concern is: what exactly will they do with all of the financial information that they gather?

One possibility is that they use the OGL-finance data to start demanding royalties in descending tiers. Tax the top 20 to start, figure out the financial landscape, and start charging rent on the top ten percent, then the top twenty and so on.

 

[LordEntrails]

so what the OP is saying is the legal term "Alpha Beta Gamma" is not the same thing as legal term "Alpha Beta"?
Brilliant deduction there. Just because two legal terms share words does not mean that one is of the other type.

As for the rest of the rant? Full of errors and trolling it seems.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Full of errors and trolling it seems.

Guys he isn't a troll. People can freely disagree with assertions in the post. I think it's fair to discuss any conclusions, speculation, etc. But I'v known this poster a long time. Trolling isn't something he does

 

[kenada]

how do you figure?

Paizo wouldn’t agree to the GSL. Why would they agree to a license that requires revenue reporting and royalties paid to WotC indefinitely? For the OSR, the point of retroclones was to create games that were unencumbered, so people could use them and create content for them. This version of the OGL would keep them encumbered, defeating the point. I suppose they could be released as non-open games (like Kevin Crawford does for his), but I think the hobby would be much worse off if things had gone that route.

 

[see]

The current two versions of the OGL v1.0 (3.X) and v1.0a meet the above criteria except for specific elements.

As a factual matter, let's note that the OGL 1.0a was introduced no later than 2002, before even 3.5 was released. (My 2000 print copy of the original Creature Collection has the OGL 1.0, but the 2002 original print Tome of Horrors has the OGL 1.0a).

OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a content can't be used with OGL 1.1 content as a result of Section 12 of the current OGL.

You need to go check Section 9 of the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a. If it's Open Game Content released under either of those licenses, it can be used under the terms of any released version of the OGL, so if the OGL 1.1 has provisions for using of Open Game Content, you'll be able to use the existing content under the OGL 1.1. Maybe the OGL 1.1 will fail to include provisions for use of Open Game Content, but since we don't have the terms, we can't actually say.

Now, it does suggest (wandering into speculation here) that the SRD and the like for the One D&D revision will not be designated Open Game Content. Because otherwise people would just take the new Open Game Content and use it under the OGL 1.0a to avoid the reporting requirements, royalties, and the like. (WotC might well argue they can't, but it's obviously legally cleaner if they just use a new name for the content rather than arguing whether the OGL 1.0a can be used on Open Game Content released under the OGL 1.1.)

 

[Malmuria]

Paizo wouldn’t agree to the GSL. Why would they agree to a license that requires revenue reporting and royalties paid to WotC indefinitely? For the OSR, the point of retroclones was to create games that were unencumbered, so people could use them and create content for them. This version of the OGL would keep them encumbered, defeating the point. I suppose they could be released as non-open games (like Kevin Crawford does for his), but I think the hobby would be much worse off if things had gone that route.

But then, the revenue reporting and royalties only apply to people making over $50,000 and $750,000 respectively. Did any retroclone fall into that category until recently?