What would an incontrovertible irrevocable OGL 2.0 look like?

[Yaarel]

This YouTube link is in other threads but is immediate relevant in this one. Roll for Combat, the "Revising D&D OGL History" episode, interviews Ryan Dancey himself about why and how he as WotC vice president created the original OGL 1.0a with lawyer Brian Lewis. The interview touches on many aspects, such as why he avoided public domain (it would effectively dissolve and devalue your property) and the CC license types (they were too easy to misunderstand).

He refers to "network externality", where the value of a product depends on the number of people using it, rather than the product itself. His example is a telephone that is worthless if only one person has one but increases value when more people have one. Thus the OGL causes gaming property to become more valuable by encouraging more users.

 

[Kinematics]

Those of you familiar with the Creative Commons contracts, which CC matches the OGL 1.0a most closely?

The OGL allows a nonexclusive right to use, modify, and commercialize the Open Gaming Content that others have contributed, while simultaneously protecting the Product Identity content that creators kept exclusive.

It would be one of the commercial licenses (which is the default). It's not clear if the OGL requires that any released content by the publisher also be released as OGL, and the manner in which it splits open content and product identity means that probably wouldn't work anyway.

So most probably the basic one: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)

You are free to share your derivative work, but not required to. Presumably you can be selective in what you share (eg: create your own SRD). It requires attribution of the original publisher. You can commercialize the product.

 

[see]

Those of you familiar with the Creative Commons contracts, which CC matches the OGL 1.0a most closely?

The OGL 1.0a is a lot like CC BY-SA insofar as material derivative of Open Game Content has to be (or at least is supposed to be) Open Game Content.

Although the CC BY-SA does not have specific wording to make it easy to do so, at least in principle, you could, in a work, clearly mark various parts as being the CC BY-SA content while other parts (which would have to be original work or otherwise not derivative of CC BY-SA material) as being proprietary content, which would reflect the ability under the OGL 1.0a to publish something like (say) Relics & Rituals, where the "Description" section of a magic item was Product Identity and the "Powers" section was Open Game Content.

 

[glass]

neither is micky mouse, but that doesnt have anything to do with if there should be a clause about hatespeach...

You used "it is their IP" as a reason to include a poison-pill hate-speech clause. Pointing out that "it's their IP" is nonsense is a perfectly reasonable rebuttal to that (also, Micky Mouse has never been released under any version of the OGL AFAIK - both my examples had).

and I am uninterested in giving the gaming space of a new OGL over to people who use slurs.

There is nothing in OGL 1.0 and 1.0a against hate speech, so there is no "giving over" happening. Hate speech is certainly a problem, but it is not a problem that is caused or exacerbated by the the OGL. Plus, even assuming that such a clause did not entirely kill the licence (it would), it would be as likely to be weaponised against people fighting against hate speech as people actually employing it.