D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[spectacle]

Ah, point taken.

Couldn't Hasbro just stop providing the OGL? No fancy steps. Just stop providing it.



If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Thx!

TomB

The license is attahed to the content. If you have a piece of OGL content in your hands, then you're also holding a license that allows you to edit and distribute it. WOTC can't "stop providing it" without physically removing it from every piece of OGL content out there.

 

[tomBitonti]

The license is attached to the content. If you have a piece of OGL content in your hands, then you're also holding a license that allows you to edit and distribute it. WOTC can't "stop providing it" without physically removing it from every piece of OGL content out there.

Agreed, but, that's an existing product. Could the OGL be withdrawn for creating new products?

Thx!

TomB

 

[delericho]

Agreed, but, that's an existing product. Could the OGL be withdrawn for creating new products?

I don't think so because, as spectacle says, if you have the OGC that you want to use, you also have the license to use it.

They could stop issuing the license to new products that don't include any existing OGC... but since such products wouldn't need the license anyway, it's a meaningless step.

 

[Morrus]

Ah, point taken.

Couldn't Hasbro just stop providing the OGL? No fancy steps. Just stop providing it.



If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Thx!

TomB

Hasbro isn't 'granting' it to anybody. WotC authored it, yes, but it can be used independently of them. It's use does not require permission, and permission to use it can neither be given nor denied save for automatic breach terms contained in the text. I will be using it to make WOIN open gaming content. And content made open also cannot be unopened, so the 3.5 SRD is perpetually open, as is any other OGC created.

 

[Mistwell]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] There is another route - get the OGL declared invalid on its face. Due to the way things tend to work, it would render all the OGL materials licenses void, but the court probably would rule that prior unintended infractions are good faith errors and not actionable. ISTR hearing that one particular early open license was declared invalid.

Another way would be to "prove" that the material in D&D wasn't legitimately held by the contributor and so couldn't be open licensed by the licensing agent.

Ah, point taken.

Couldn't Hasbro just stop providing the OGL? No fancy steps. Just stop providing it.



If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Thx!

TomB

Interesting arguments. I dunno. Worth playing with, as an intellectual game.

 

[Staffan]

Ah, point taken.

Couldn't Hasbro just stop providing the OGL? No fancy steps. Just stop providing it.



If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Thx!

TomB

IANAL, but yes, you are missing something. Mainly, this:
The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

and this:
Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

Since the SRD exists, and has the license attached to it, the license applies. The contributors grant a perpetual etcetera license, so it can't be withdrawn.

Even if in theory Wizards could withdraw the SRD, that would not alter the state of any previous product, and those products also include the license allowing anyone to use the open content within. For example, the d20 SRD site is released under the license, and contains a copy of the SRD. That copy of the SRD is still valid open content (though come to think of it, it might be in violation of the license because of its use of the "d20 system" trademark and associated logo). Pathfinder has been released, and includes a copy of the license, so anyone could use the stuff in Pathfinder to create new things. Each and every new product created using the OGL acts as a new source of open content.

 

[Mistwell]

Hasbro isn't 'granting' it to anybody. WotC authored it, yes, but it can be used independently of them. It's use does not require permission, and permission to use it can neither be given nor denied save for automatic breach terms contained in the text. I will be using it to make WOIN open gaming content. And content made open also cannot be unopened, so the 3.5 SRD is perpetually open, as is any other OGC created.

The license does grant something from WOTC to someone else if you are using WOTC material as the contributed material, "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You...".

The problem with this is that I think anyone who had already agreed to the license would still be covered, and they can themselves grant "sub-licenses" under it to someone else even if WOTC no longer grants such licenses. So WOTC ceasing offering future licenses wouldn't stop additional licenses from being used, it would just be "granted" by someone who had already agreed to the license. Like you, or Paizo, or hundreds of other people and companies.

Now I suppose one (silly and totally theoretical) way to maybe do it would be for WOTC to first stop offering future licenses, and then buy the right from every single person and company who ever agreed to the license away from them, having them agree to never use the license again or grant further licenses to anyone else under a new agreement. Of course, that would never realistically work. But in theory, if suddenly everyone decided they all wanted to help WOTC out and accept a payment, it could be done under the law I think (maybe?).

 

[Morrus]

The license does grant something from WOTC to someone else if you are using WOTC material as the contributed material, "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You...".

I meant the license itself, not the content.

So WOTC ceasing offering future licenses wouldn't stop additional licenses from being used, it would just be "granted" by someone who had already agreed to the license. Like you, or Paizo, or hundreds of other people and companies.

This is what I meant. My game will use the license, be OGL, and have 0% of WotC SRD material, or anything derived from it. Like Fate, for example.

And even if they could stop me doing that, I could just write a similar license for my game that does the same thing. WotC isn't really involved at all at this point.

I literary only use the OGL for convenience. Nothing more.

 

[Parmandur]

The thing about the OGL is that what it helps facilitate can be done anyway.



That is why Judges Guild material was publishable back in the 80s.

Exactly, it always was primarily a PR move.

 

[tomBitonti]

Even if in theory Wizards could withdraw the SRD, that would not alter the state of any previous product, and those products also include the license allowing anyone to use the open content within. For example, the d20 SRD site is released under the license, and contains a copy of the SRD. That copy of the SRD is still valid open content (though come to think of it, it might be in violation of the license because of its use of the "d20 system" trademark and associated logo). Pathfinder has been released, and includes a copy of the license, so anyone could use the stuff in Pathfinder to create new things. Each and every new product created using the OGL acts as a new source of open content.

Ah, ..., this.

I suppose that if the license were withdrawn, new products would be limited to what is already available. But, since that is, essentially, everything (the SRD), the withdrawal would have no effect.

Thx!

TomB