Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[Ruin Explorer]

Reading that, it seems to me that, while we don't know how this will ultimately play out, anybody who thinks they might conceivably want to use the OGL 1.0a in the future should do so immediately by releasing a tiny 'product' into the wild under the OGL before WotC stops 'offering' it. If this version turns out to be the way it goes, those people will perpetually have the right to use the current SRD contents.

That sounds like extremely good advice, Morrus.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Well I'm an academic, we are inclined to speculation! But yes, the 3PPs definitely should be sitting tight and waiting for clarification. It may very well be that WoTC is only seeking to stop OGL 1.1 users from also using OGL 1.0. Which is bad, but not the Apocalypse.

I agree, this is all speculative. Anyway, it's been a fun debate with you specifically. I apologize if my last couple of comments were snippy. Only time will tell who is right!

 

[S'mon]

One thing I was wondering about is the sublicensees bit. It reads as if anyone using the OGL "down the line" would be covered. So if I put out a product after WotC "de-authorizes" 1.0/a, but I used OGC from someone else who did publish prior to that point, I would therefore be a sublicensee of that person/content, so I'd be covered.

Yup, that's what it says. That's how it was intended to work.

 

[overgeeked]

That sounds like extremely good advice, Morrus.

Sorry for the clutter, but I just posted a short PDF of my monster design system, including the OGL. If you're still interested, swing by.

D&D 5E - Monsters & Obstacles (partial draft)

Just an experiment with all this OGL stuff going on. This isn't an OGL thread, so please let's not make this into one. This is a draft of an OGL 5E product I am/was working on. Not sure about it going forward. But here it is anyway. The explanation is missing as I was still working on that bit...

www.enworld.org

 

[Alzrius]

Reading that, it seems to me that, while we don't know how this will ultimately play out, anybody who thinks they might conceivably want to use the OGL 1.0a in the future should do so immediately by releasing a tiny 'product' into the wild under the OGL before WotC stops 'offering' it. If this version turns out to be the way it goes, those people will perpetually have the right to use the current SRD contents.

To add to this, insofar as I'm aware this can constitute something as minor as a blog post, so long as you make sure to 1) repost the full text of the OGL v1.0a, 2) post a clear notice of what's Open Game Content in the material you release, 3) post a clear notice of what's Product Identity in the material you release, and 4) make sure to have all of the requisite copyright notices in the Section 15 of the copy of the OGL that you repost.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Reading that, it seems to me that, while we don't know how this will ultimately play out, anybody who thinks they might conceivably want to use the OGL 1.0a in the future should do so immediately by releasing a tiny 'product' into the wild under the OGL before WotC stops 'offering' it. If this version turns out to be the way it goes, those people will perpetually have the right to use the current SRD contents.

THAT might be the best non lawyer advice I have seen yet (I shouldn't be surprise it comes from you)

 

[jgbrowning]

But here, WotC has basically been giving it away for for free.

This statement sounds somewhat contrary to WotC's publicly declared reasons for creating the OGL: to benefit from it.

joe b.

 

[FrogReaver]

Practically speaking I don’t know how much who would win in court really matters.

The major distribution channels are all that WOTC needs to go after. Get the content to be pulled from those sites by the sites themselves instead of by the content creators and the remaining legal questions about OGL and deauthorization/revocability really are mostly moot.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Practically speaking I don’t know how much who would win in court really matters.

The major distribution channels are all that WOTC needs to go after. Get the content to be pulled from those sites by the sites themselves instead of by the content creators and the remaining legal questions about OGL and deauthorization/revocability really are mostly moot.

Translation: you suggest WotC persuade and/or bully Drive-Thru RPG to take down a large swath of OGL content.

Seeing as being the font of commercially available OGL content it its very reason for existence and most of its entire business model, I'm not sure that Drive-Thru would willingly do this, or why.

More to the point, what you are advocating for is called interference with contractual relations. It's actionable by the affected part(ies) against both WotC and Drive-Thru RPG. In the circumstances, it would likely meet the test for certification as a class proceeding, too. If you want to dump chum & blood in the water? That would certainly do it.

I'd ease off on the practical business advice, maybe?

 

[Greg K]

I have already provided many citations throughout my arguments. But anyway, here are more:

Here's a quote from a fabulous article on the subject that really drives my point home:

"The contract theory of license also creates obstacles and confusion in other contexts. Some copyright owners - as exemplified by the open-source and Creative Commons movements - wish to grant nonexclusive licenses to large classes of users with whom they cannot bargain and from whom they seek no payment in return

Question. Would the money WOTC receives from all third party sales on DMsGuild be considered compensation? (edit: I don't know all terms WOTC set out for publishers to sell on the DMsGuild).