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

[Umbran]

At least on the fact of its text, the licence does not purport to bind non-parties.

Quite right.

But then, WotC is under no onus to point out that terms don't apply unless you agree.

As part of a license, they do not have to preface every line with, "If you agree to this license..." for example. That is assumed in legal terms. But it is not assumed in normal conversational language. So, to a layman, a term that reads "X is true" looks like a statement of fact, when it is actually a conditional - "If you agree to this license, X is true."

 

[S'mon]

Your preference for doctrinal and contractual clarity is unrealistic.

Academics, eh?

 

[Jd Smith1]

Y'all are just opining at each other about something that could only be decided by a court.

True. That is just about the entire basis of this thread, really.

But in true gamer spirit, I think what we have here is very much the reaction when the leaders of Men, Elves, and Dwarves realized that their free ring(s) they have enjoyed have a catch to them...

 

[Jd Smith1]

oh, the marriage comparison was better? good to know, would never have figured that out otherwise, but I guess if you say so I have to take your word for it, I mean you use the word ‘fact’ after all

 

[mamba]

But Licensed Content is defined as content in SRD 5.1. So anyone who commercially published content in SRD 5.1 (i.e. Licensed Content), has agreed to the terms of OGL 1.1. Right?

anyone who has not included OGL 1.1 in their product has not agreed to it. Whether that means they are now in violation of 1.1. is another matter.

 

[S'mon]

No, I don't think you're missing anything. And what you say is broadly consistent with what many posters in this thread have been saying - though way upthread, when the two options were canvassed of "deliberate misinformation" and "confusion among non-lawyers reading the document", I (with at least one other poster) thought the second was more likely; whereas it now seems that I was wrong and the first is more likely. (The first leads to the second, of course.)

You're too good for this sinful world, Pemerton. Yeah, I was cynical enough to believe WoTC could really be that bad.

 

[S'mon]

anyone who has not included OGL 1.1 in their product has not agreed to it. Whether that means they are now in violation of 1.1. is another matter.

You cannot be in violation of a contract you are not party to.

 

[kjdavies]

There are actually a quite nice reading of this. Section II only require you to follow the terms of this license if publishing anything with "Licensed Content". In other words, it appear as long as you are not cross publishing with 5.1 SRD content, it is nothing in this OGL that prevents you from publishing anything containing SRD3.5 content. It just doesn't provide any rights to do so either. Which mean that if we ignore the "authorized" farce, there are nothing preventing you to use SRD3.5 material under 1.0a (and indeed nothing that prevents you from publishing 5.1SRD content under 1.0a either as long as you abide with all the 1.1 provisions, including not mixing with "Unlicensed Content" as far as I can see)
IANAL

IANAL either, but it seems a reasonable interpretation to me. In the name of Don't Repeat Yourself this license says what this license does and does not do (licenses SRD 5.1 and not other SRDs; SRD 5.1 is usable under this license and not v1.0a) and leaves the rest out... the rest is irrelevant to what is going on in this license.

It would be nice if the commentary also said "open content usable under OGL v1.0a is still usable under OGL v1.0a", and perhaps if they had phrased "OGL v1.0a is unauthorized" as "OGL v1.0a is not authorized for SRD 5.1" (assuming of course that is what they mean). I can understand if they wanted readers to misunderstand and assume everything else goes away and move to SRD 5.1/OGL v1.1... but reader misunderstanding is the reader's fault, not the writer's fault innocent reptilian smile

 

[mamba]

You cannot be in violation of a contract you are not party to.

true, but not sure how else to say 'you may no longer be covered by 1.0a and now violate WotC's copyright, because 1.1 seems to say so', maybe you have better terminology... well, apart from this long text here...

 

[Greg Benage]

You cannot be in violation of a contract you are not party to.

But can you become a party by publishing content from SRD 5.1?!?

Damn lawyers, why won’t you answer this in English!