The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[kenada]

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?

No idea. They don’t make their sales information public. Small games? I doubt. Larger ones like OSRIC? Maybe. OSE? Definitely, but that’s recent. However, my point is I think the revenue requirement would have a chilling effect on using the SRD to create a retroclone. Anyway, I admit my original post was a bit hyperbolic, but the point was to illustrate how the new license is not open like the old one is. If WotC wants to go that route, they’re well within their rights to do that (just like they did with the GSL for 4e). It’s just not open anymore (just like the GSL for 4e was not).

 

[GreyLord]

Well, the thing to also look at is what NEW information will be released for use under the 1.1 and HOW it will be released.

I think many assume it will be business as usual in it being the same as the former releases.

I don't know yet how it will be (not sure if anyone does TBH), but there could be things that limit what can be used from the new information released that can be utilized under 1.1 that would not be able to be utilized under 1.0a or 1.0 in either case.

Some of this may be the carrot to inspire people to use 1.1 rather than older versions of the OGL.

One way to look at it is how Open License and/or Open Source works in software and other areas beyond D&D and RPGs.

IMO (can't stress this enough)...

This new one won't negate the old OGL's and what was OGL for 5e is still OGL, and 1 D&D will be backwards compatible (as per WotC's statements). In that light, it may not have as big an impact as some are thinking on the publication market, BUT, there may be some new items that will be the carrot that will make some of those bigger publishers consider using it (and I imagine a lot of it will deal with the size of the audiences on VTTs and online and the impact 1.1 will have on that as well as people wanting a piece of that pie. Afterall, selling 10K copies is good, but reaching and audience of 10 million and selling 100K copies is better...right?)

 

[robconley]

This type of hyperbole doesn't help the conversation, especially since it's riddled with errors.

Feel free to point out the specifics, I been commenting on the OGL and various related issues for nearly 15 years..

 

[robconley]

I'm somewhat confused by this. How does not being able to comply with the OGL with respect to Open Game Content specifically because of a statute, judicial order, or government regulation mean that you can't use Open Game Content from versions 1.0 and 1.0a with version 1.1 of the license?

To put it another way, what statute, judicial order, or government regulation prevents you from using v1.0 and v1.0a Open Game Content under the OGL v1.1?

It means content licensed under the OGL 1.1 can not be used with content licensed under the OGL 1.0a. So OneD&D publishers making a product using content from OGL 1.1 under the proposed changes would not have my permission per the OGL to use Blackmarsh. Nor would they have permission under the Creative Common license that I also attached to Blackmarsh as a choice . Because in both cases the terms of the OGL1.0a and Creative Commons conflict with the proposed terms in the article.

The main sticking point is that in order to use Blackmarsh they have to share any content based on it under the same terms.

 

[Alzrius]

It means content licensed under the OGL 1.1 can not be used with content licensed under the OGL 1.0a.

No, that's not what Section 12 means. Moreover, Section 9 is pretty clear that you can use Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL with any other version of the OGL.

 

[robconley]

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

If you have any specific points I would be happy to answer them.

 

[Reynard]

First and foremost: OGL.v1.1 is not released so we don't know what final form it will take. I have no doubt that it isn't finalized, and conversations with big 3PP partners (remember those NDA emails?) Will adjust the scope and language of whatever revised OGL comes out. Remember, the entire purpose of the OGL is to alleviate pressure on WotC from having to produce not-profitable-enough material for D&D, so the opinions and business expectations of major 3rd parties like Kobold will have real weight in the process.

And on top of that the genie is out of the bottle and the only way, based on Section 9 of the OGL, for WotC to lock down content is by creating a new license. They tried that with the GSL during 4e. It was an unqualified failure and led to the rise of their most substantial competition since White Wolf in 1992. They aren't going to invite another Pathfinder to eat their lunch (especially since it would probably be Paizo again).

WotC is obviously looking for a way to protect their Beyond and VTT investment. That's what this is about. I doubt they care what Legendary or smaller companies do.

 

[robconley]

No, that's not what Section 12 means. Moreover, Section 9 is pretty clear that you can use Open Game Content released under any version of the OGL with any other version of the OGL.

No you can only use content if you are able to comply with all the conditions of the license. Namely #4 which grants a right use a non-exclusive royalty free right to the content. In turn a person using the open content must also grant to the purchaser of their book the same right to use my open content and anything based on that open content. They not allowed to impose further restriction on my content.

So if they try to combine my Blackmarsh which was released under the OGL 1.0a license with a license using the proposed terms of OGL 1.1. Section 12 as they would not be able to fulfill clause #4 and other clause relating to the open content they are using.

 

[Reynard]

No you can only use content if you are able to comply with all the conditions of the license. Namely #4 which grants a right use a non-exclusive royalty free right to the content. In turn a person using the open content must also grant to the purchaser of their book the same right to use my open content and anything based on that open content. They not allowed to impose further restriction on my content.

So if they try to combine my Blackmarsh which was released under the OGL 1.0a license with a license using the proposed terms of OGL 1.1. Section 12 as they would not be able to fulfill clause #4 and other clause relating to the open content they are using.

Read section 9 again. It's explicit.

 

[Alzrius]

No you can only use content if you are able to comply with all the conditions of the license. Namely #4 which grants a right use a non-exclusive royalty free right to the content. In turn a person using the open content must also grant to the purchaser of their book the same right to use my open content and anything based on that open content. They not allowed to impose further restriction on my content.

So if they try to combine my Blackmarsh which was released under the OGL 1.0a license with a license using the proposed terms of OGL 1.1. Section 12 as they would not be able to fulfill clause #4 and other clause relating to the open content they are using.

Okay, I think I understand what you're saying here, but I don't believe that it works the way you're suggesting. Section 4 states that you're granted a "perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." What that means is that you can use the OGL (specifically, v1.0 and v1.0a) without being charged royalties for it.

Now, presumably the OGL v1.1 won't have that particular clause, since WotC has said they want to charge royalties for publishers who earn more than $750,000 per year (presumably from OGL v1.1 materials that those publishers release). But that in no way violates the terms of the OGL v1.0 and v1.0a. You're not being charged royalties for using those licenses, after all; you're being charged royalties for using v1.1. Even if they use the same material (since Section 9 permits Open Game Content published under one version of the OGL to be used with any other version of the OGL), that's a separate consideration; the same content can be subject to different licenses, after all, just like how a lot of old d20 products were subject to the OGL and the d20 STL.

EDIT: I'm still unclear where Section 12 fits into what you're saying, as it's specific to being restricted from using Open Game Content due to various governmental actions, which insofar as I'm aware aren't a factor in anything that's going on with the OGL v1.1, 1D&D, or WotC.