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

[kenada]

It's certainly underhanded...I'm not sure if it's clever. Why didn't they include SRD 3 or SRD 3.5 while they were at it? Paizo doesn't use SRD 5, so they don't get auto-opted into the agreement? Or Wizards thinks they can follow a chain of derivative work back from 5 to 3.5 to 3? The specification of SRD 5.1 is weird to me.

The 3e and 3.5e SRD seem to be considered Unlicensed Content now (emphasis mine).

ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.​

 

[Greg Benage]

The 3e and 3.5e SRD seem to be considered Unlicensed Content now (emphasis mine).

Yeah, but the automatic opt-in is only triggered if you publish Licensed Content in SRD 5.1. Still, the way it's written, Paizo certainly published content that is present in SRD 5.1, even if they didn't use SRD 5.1 when they published it. Oy.

 

[jgbrowning]

Yeah, but the automatic opt-in is only triggered if you publish Licensed Content in SRD 5.1. Still, the way it's written, Paizo certainly published content that is present in SRD 5.1, even if they didn't use SRD 5.1 when they published it. Oy.

Maybe I'm suspicious but I'm getting a "we're making it intentionally opaque" feeling.

joe b.

 

[kenada]

Yeah, but the automatic opt-in is only triggered if you publish Licensed Content in SRD 5.1. Still, the way it's written, Paizo certainly published content that is present in SRD 5.1, even if they didn't use SRD 5.1 when they published it. Oy.

They have published a few 5e conversions (Abomination Vaults and a bestiary for Kingmaker), but I don’t know if those use the 5.1 SRD. It certainly makes things confusing if you just want to stick with the 3e SRD and avoid the OGL 1.1 (which might be intended).

 

[Greg Benage]

Maybe I'm suspicious but I'm getting a "we're making it intentionally opaque" feeling.

It's definitely complex enough that 3PPs are going to need to lawyer up.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The 3e and 3.5e SRD seem to be considered Unlicensed Content now (emphasis mine).

ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.​

This seems to conflate material never released under the OGL (e.g. certain monsters and spells) and material from older versions of the SRD. It lumps them together as Unlicensed Content. But it requires you to agree not to use this material without a separate agreement. There seems to be an assertion previous OGC = product identify.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I also get the feeling they are being opaque to create FUD. I think this is not just a legal document but also a business document created to spread mistrust.

 

[kenada]

This seems to conflate material never released under the OGL (e.g. certain monsters and spells) and material from older versions of the SRD. It lumps them together as Unlicensed Content. But it requires you to agree not to use this material without a separate agreement. There seems to be an assertion previous OGC = product identify.

And I’d guess that they do not consider the OGL 1.0a an acceptable agreement for that purpose.

 

[Greg Benage]

This seems to conflate material never released under the OGL (e.g. certain monsters and spells) and material from older versions of the SRD. It lumps them together as Unlicensed Content. But it requires you to agree not to use this material without a separate agreement. There seems to be an assertion previous OGC = product identify.

I don't think it's asserting that prior OGC not in the SRD 5.1 is Product Identity, but it definitely suggests that if it's not in the 5.1 SRD, then it's Unlicensed Content, including [but not limited to] "what the old OGL referred to as 'Product Identity.'"

 

[Enrahim2]

Regarding cross use - There are two mechanisms I can see preventing cross use from 1.1 to 1.0a. One is that I cannot see any mechanism that indicate that anything published under 1.1 is considered "Open Game Content" under 1.0a. The other is that the most narrow possible understanding of "1.0a is no longer an authorized version" appear to be referencing section 9, effectively preventing material only published under 1.1 and not 1.0a to be published under 1.0a. However the only provision I could see that might be interpreted as preventing use of 1.0a in 1.1 is the wider understanding of "1.0a is no longer an authorized version".

In other words, it would seem like if that provision is removed, as petitioned there should be no reason at all wizard couldn't use 1.0a content in 1.1 works, while according to the reasoning above, anyone wanting to still build on 5.1 material would still be trapped into 1.1?