The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License

[pemerton]

the license cannot be revoked.

Correct. But I have no licence from WotC to use their material, as I have not entered into any agreement with them.

To be more precise about that, I have not taken any steps under section 3 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a - "3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

WotC is under no obligation to continue to make that offer to me. They could withdraw it at any time. To qualify a bit what @kenada posted, they could continue to make the SRD available on their website (so that interested people could read it, make fair use of it, etc) but could declare henceforth that they will not enter into any further licence agreements in respect of it.

That would not change the rights of any existing party to the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, including that party's right to distribute the OGC to further parties (like me). But it would mean that I couldn't enter into a licence agreement directly with WotC. In practical terms, this would be relevant for my Section 15 copyright notice.

 

[pemerton]

Please address the rest of the quote then: "Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license [...] remains OGC forever, available for use under the license"

You are simply wrong, but clearly I cannot make you agree with that

What do you think the source of WotC's legal obligation is? There is no statute. There is no estoppel. No one has paid to keep an option open (as far as I know).

By "released as OGC under the licence", must be meant "released to a party as OGC under that party's licence with WotC". And of course, that party can sub-license to others in accordance with the terms of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

 

[mamba]

To be more precise about that, I have not taken any steps under section 3 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a - "3. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

but you can do so at any point in time, this is not limited in time

WotC is under no obligation to continue to make that offer to me.

yes they are, they came under that obligation when they made the SRD available under the OGL. They cannot rescind the offer.

See section 9 "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."

They could withdraw it at any time. To qualify a bit what @kenada posted, they could continue to make the SRD available on their website (so that interested people could read it, make fair use of it, etc) but could declare henceforth that they will not enter into any further licence agreements in respect of it.

Them making the SRD available or not is immaterial. All SRDs are still available, not all from WotC's site. If you wanted to you could still publish 3.5 content using the 3.5 SRD, there just is not much of a market for it.

I am done here, nothing will convince you, so keep pretending that you understand this.

 

[darjr]

It's to bad WotC took this route.

If they had said they would make a trimmed down SRD, much like the current one, under the OGL 1.0a for the new revision of D&D but also had this other thing that came with a much more comprehensive SRD, maybe the whole game, for licenses. Then sweetened it with access to DNDBeyond. I'm sure the reception, at least, would have been much better.

I could even see some folks taking them up on the offer.

 

[mamba]

It's to bad WotC took this route.

If they had said they would make a trimmed down SRD, much like the current one, under the OGL 1.0a for the new revision of D&D but also had this other thing that came with a much more comprehensive SRD, maybe the whole game, for licenses. Then sweetened it with access to DNDBeyond. I'm sure the reception, at least, would have been much better.

I could even see some folks taking them up on the offer.

I am not even sure the 1.1 version will not simply be ignored. According to WotC's own FAQ it can be.

"Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway."

 

[robconley]

Pretty sure actual laws disagree with you on this, any 'should' aside

I don't agree with how IP laws currently stand so I do what I can. One of them is the strong advocacy of open content and open license.

 

[Dausuul]

But suppose that a bank ends up owning the SRD, in a way that doesn't extinguish the licence, then you'd just pay them your royalties.

I guess I'm not seeing how the royalties clause changes the capacity of the licence to "save D&D".

I think the issue would be, if there were a messy bankruptcy such as TSR was facing at the end -- with the company's assets pledged to an assortment of different creditors, to be parceled out piecemeal -- it might be very hard for your average RPG publisher to figure out who to pay, and getting it wrong could be very expensive. (Or, for that matter, having to prove in court that you got it right.)

That said, the chance of Wizards ending up where TSR did seems vanishingly small. Even if Hasbro were to go through some mind-boggling corporate implosion, it's highly unlikely that Wizards' IP would end up getting pulled apart like that.

 

[Cadence]

Tangentially, found this interesting about Creative Commons licenses.

Q: Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? A: No. Er… Sort Of? Maybe?

A Creative Commons license is irrevocable; it says so right in the license. But it also says you can change your mind and distribute the work differently, or not at all. What does this mean?

scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org

 

[Umbran]

I am done here, nothing will convince you, so keep pretending that you understand this.

Mod Note:
This was unnecessary, and not constructive. We ask folks to keep their discussions about the words said, not the person who says them. What you did here made this less about the legal realities, and more about an ego clash between you, which, honestly, nobody wants to read.

 

[Umbran]

WotC is under no obligation to continue to make that offer to me.

They could withdraw it at any time.

No, they cannot, because they aren't "continuing to make an offer". They have released an offer out into the universe. They would have to hunt down and eradicate every extant copy of a given SRD and its associated license to have the offer cease to be.

The SRD and it's license are like a bearer bond - you have it, and you have the right. That in 40 years WotC (or whoever holds their IP in a few decades) might not want it that way is irrelevant. They are out of luck - there is no way to recall it, because once released, you don't need their permission to reproduce it!

And that was very intentional. Ryan Dancey, that architect of the OGL, was clear on this - it makes it so that while WotC may own the trademarks, a game so released cannot ever be closed off again by a corporation.

To qualify a bit what @kenada posted, they could continue to make the SRD available on their website (so that interested people could read it, make fair use of it, etc) but could declare henceforth that they will not enter into any further licence agreements in respect of it.

You might want to go read the license again. It doesn't need their signature, assent, or acknowledgement. Their agreement is in the license. In releasing under the OGL, they gave their perpetual agreement to this use.