<<Actually, if the hypothetical OGL 2.0 mandated that any derivitive work
use a version of OGL 2 or higher, you'd find a slow shift away from OGL 1.
>>
Only for d20 licensed products. Anyone else could use whatever OGL version they wanted regardless of when any new IP was released.
"9. Updating the License: 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."
<<
No new type of content is required. Just a substantial body of work
that does not allow OGL 1 to be used.
>>
Again, to create a body of work that doesn't allow OGL 1 to be used requires:
a) a change in the d20 STL -- but this works ONLY for d20 licensed products
b) a new type of content -- since without an OGL 1.0 incompatible content type anyone not using the d20 STL could just use OGL 1.0
<<
The OGL is resistant by design to this type of change, but it's not
impossible. Especially if OGL 2 has sufficient value, in new terms or
new IP, to make it worthwhile to the publishers.
>>
New IP is not relevant at all. Unless the new IP is a new type of content not managed by OGL 1.0, then OGL only publishers would have no incentive to use a more restrictive OGL 2.0.
I'd say without an incentive plan, the only reason to switch over to OGL 2.0 would be if it sufficiently clarifies things so that use of it avoids potential lawsuits.
So, I really don't see how updating the d20 STL will encourage OGL 2.0 usage in non-d20 licensed publications, particularly if OGL 2.0 is more restrictive than the current one is in any way.
Lee
