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

[shadowoflameth]

Except there are sublicenses involved. For example, I used a fair amount of content from Matt Finich's Swords & Wizardry in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. At no time I used any material directly from the d20 SRD. But Matt did. Then there is the fact that the license has an explicit termination clause. And it mentions if the rights to the content are terminated all sub-licenses remain in force.

This could lead to an odd time-line where Matt Finch isn't allowed to publish or build on Swords & Wizardry but I am allowed to continue with the Majestic Fantasy RPG. Because my legal relationship for the Majestic Fantasy RPG is with Matt Finch not Wizards of the Coast.

The result is that the answer isn't as clear-cut as folks would like it to be.

So you were publishing content? When you say you used the content, if that's meaning in your own unpaid, non-commercial gain, they don't care. They just want a cut of MONEY made from the content. If the 3rd party that you mention publishes derived content and is no longer licensed, they may be on a legal hook for some money. The only effect on you, the player or DM is that there will likely be less or no new 3rd party content going forward.

 

[S'mon]

So you were publishing content?

Estar (Rob Conley) is a well known writer & publisher.

 

[Prime_Evil]

So you were publishing content? When you say you used the content, if that's meaning in your own unpaid, non-commercial gain, they don't care. They just want a cut of MONEY made from the content. If the 3rd party that you mention publishes derived content and is no longer licensed, they may be on a legal hook for some money. The only effect on you, the player or DM is that there will likely be less or no new 3rd party content going forward.

The teems of the OGL v1.0a do not merely apply to publishers. The license is clear about what is considered a derivative work and what "distribution" of this work entails. It does not require that money changes hands:

(b)"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted; (c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;

 

[Enrahim2]

But following my train of thought above: If you have the narrow interpretation of "no longer an authorized version"(NLAAV) that it only prevent use of open gaming material published in 1.1 to be used in 1.0a. Then there are no mechanisms hindering use of 1.0a in 1.1 works, but not only that. 1.1 has currently no formulation I can see that can allow any content creators of 1.1 material to build on any work from other creators of 1.1 material (beyond wizards, that will at least update the definition of "Lisenced Content" as the new oneD&D SRD is coming out). However with the narrow interpretation of NLAAV there seem to be nothing preventing from them to declare parts of their 1.1 compliant material "Open Gaming Content", and hence enable other 1.1 creators to build on that trough the 1.0a section 9 clause, despite 1.0a not gaining access to that material - but this time the prevention of using 1.0a material would only be due to the NLAAV, rather than the first mechanism described in post 1000.

As wizards already believe manage to do the main thing they seem to want - forcing content creators into 1.1 without the NLAAV language, the presence of it seem very puzzling to me, unless it is for the purpose of preventing 1.1 to 1.0a transfer based on either people voluntarily designating OGC, or hedging against some future ruling that future "Licensed Content" is to be considered "OGC" due to the spirit of the OGL. If they believe in the mechanism of use implies agreement, and they really wanted to do "evil" stuff with Paizo as has been speculated, why didn't they hedge their chances by also including the original SRD as "Licensed Content"? Indeed, that omission might rather seem like an active concession to Paizo in light of this reasoning?

The only thing that still puzzles me is why they do not just plain clear up the confusion? My guess now would be that they see the industry getting into panic - the bad press has already happened. This is their chance to use the desperation to negotiate some deep concessions from their competitors, and in return just give them what they originally intended to do, trough clarifying the NLAAV the way described. By showing that they are willing to "adjust" they get a PR win that likely at least partly offset what they already suffer. The main stream media picking up the controversy is great to raise awareness. Maybe WotC are really happy with how this has turned out, and the louder we scream, the better it is for them?

 

[dbolack]

I don't agree with this. D&D players enjoy a lot of freedom to discuss, enjoy, watch and promote D&D independently of the OGL 1.0a.

@estar's argument (if I've understood it correctly) that the OGL v 1.0a creates an ecosystem in which talented D&D designers can emerge and be recruited by WotC (whether as staff or freelancers) is more plausible to me, particularly because it focuses on the supply side (where cultivating talent is important) than the demand side. An analogy would be the recruitment of indie film talent to help make Marvel movies.

One impetus for the OGL ( which wasn't originally intended to be a big O open license ) was that there are categories of support products perceived as needed for a game's health that are not profitable at the TSR/WotC/Hasbro scale. They could/would sell satisfactorily for publishers who operate on smaller scale/requirements and would allow WotC to focus on the items that move more units. Somewhere along the way, Ryan became infatuated with Open Licenses and it went from there.
The longwinded point to that was that the OGL provided a methodology that allowed for a more varied and healthier ecosystem of products that WotC was not entirely responsible for creating or curating and thus all boats rise.

 

[Steel_Wind]

This is also a direct nuclear strike to all VTT that do not have an agreement with WoTC - the most obvious being Foundry which scrapes materials from DND Beyond.

To be clear, Foundry VTT does not scrape DDB for anything.

There is a module, not made or written by Foundry VTT but by a patreon (Mr. Primate) and another, much more limited patreon ( VTTA, which is free), that allows someone who has a DDB account to access their own material on DDB that they own and paid for (and only the DDB material they paid for) to have that imported into their game.

WotC is not harmed by this in any manner. Indeed, I happen to know for a fact that WotC has been enriched by this, FAR more than the author of Foundry VTT ever has.

I do not dispute that WotC is probably aiming at Foundry so that they can persuade people to use their own forthcoming VTT via DDB.

In so doing, they will cause more harm to their own bottom line than they will do to improve it. In just the past nine months alone, I know that WotC has received more than $400 from me for products/services purchased on DDB. The ONLY reason I paid that was for use in Foundry VTT. The marginal cost of that to WotC was approximate one or two cents. It was essentially all pure profit to WotC-- all of it.

If this transpires as we believe it likely will, these will not be rational business decisions.

 

[S'mon]

I think I'm right that the way this works, they claim that the 3.5 SRD is no longer OGC, and it is not offered under OGL 1.1 - only the 5e SRD is. Therefore they're not actually offering Paizo what Paizo needs to function? So Paizo HAS to either assert their rights under OGL 1.0, or go out of business/stop publishing Pathfinder.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The only thing that still puzzles me is why they do not just plain clear up the confusion?

Because they created it intentionally.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Except there are sublicenses involved. For example, I used a fair amount of content from Matt Finich's Swords & Wizardry in my Majestic Fantasy RPG. At no time I used any material directly from the d20 SRD. But Matt did. Then there is the fact that the license has an explicit termination clause. And it mentions if the rights to the content are terminated all sub-licenses remain in force.

This could lead to an odd time-line where Matt Finch isn't allowed to publish or build on Swords & Wizardry but I am allowed to continue with the Majestic Fantasy RPG. Because my legal relationship for the Majestic Fantasy RPG is with Matt Finch not Wizards of the Coast.

The result is that the answer isn't as clear-cut as folks would like it to be.

This seems analogous to the situation many non-DnD publishers are in. Let's say I wish to publish a sourcebook for the Cepheus Engine. This rule system is based on the Traveller SRD released by Mongoose Publishing under the OGL v1.0a. I am not using any intellectual property of WoTC with the exception of the licence itself. The right to distribute copies of the license is explicitly granted by OGL v1.0a itself. So what is my relationship to WoTC? Mongoose relied upon representations by WoTC that the OGL v1.0a was available for use by any publisher for any game system. The creator of the Cepheus Engine (Jason Kemp) relied upon the ongoing validity of the licence in turn. And I am relying upon the rights v1.0a conveys upon me to use material copyrighted by Jason Kemp. It's a mess. Which I suspect is the point. I believe WotC may be acting in bad faith to muddy the waters as much as possible.

 

[kenada]

To be clear, Foundry VTT does not scrape DDB for anything.

There is a module, not made or written by Foundry VTT but by a patreon (Mr. Primate) and another, much more limited patreon ( VTTA, which is free), that allows someone who has a DDB account to access their own material on DDB that they own and paid for (and only the DDB material they paid for) to have that imported into their game.

WotC is not harmed by this in any manner. Indeed, I happen to know for a fact that WotC has been enriched by this, FAR more than the author of Foundry VTT ever has.

I do not dispute that WotC is probably aiming at Foundry so that they can persuade people to use their own forthcoming VTT via DDB.

In so doing, they will cause more harm to their own bottom line than they will do to improve it. In just the past nine months alone, I know that WotC has received more than $400 from me for products/services purchased on DDB. The ONLY reason I paid that was for use in Foundry VTT. The marginal cost of that to WotC was approximate one or two cents. It was essentially all pure profit to WotC-- all of it.

If this transpires as we believe it likely will, these will not be rational business decisions.

However, Foundry VTT hosts the Pathfinder 2e system module in their GitHub organization, which does include the OGL 1.0a.