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

[shadowoflameth]

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:

Yes, but if no money is paid, there's no cut for them to collect, and nothing to report to them.

 

[Enrahim2]

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.

Not quite. From the Commercial OGL: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement" If you use any Licenced Content commercially without including OGL 1.1 with it - you have both agreed to the OGL, and are in violation of it.

 

[Enrahim2]

Not quite. From the Commercial OGL: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement" If you use any Licenced Content commercially without including OGL 1.1 with it - you have both agreed to the OGL, and are in violation of it.

(The timeing here is a bit iffy though. The agreement is said to go into effect the 13th of january, but I can't see any date for when you can agree to it.. Probably when you first are made aware of the offer?)

 

[mamba]

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

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

no, unless you include 1.1 you have not agreed to it. Using SRD content without it means you violate WotC's copyright

 

[kjdavies]

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?

Today, I believe that cannot be so unless they've actually received the license. Surely it can't be accepted before it's offered, unless a TARDIS is involved.

Beyond that... surely there must be some grace period to make right. I believe the purported leaked draft said you don't have to start paying until Jan 1, 2024 and that you have time to stop publishing material based on SRD 5.1 before that.

(Thankfully I haven't done anything with SRD 5.1... procrastination and apathy for the win!)

 

[mamba]

Not quite. From the Commercial OGL: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement" If you use any Licenced Content commercially without including OGL 1.1 with it - you have both agreed to the OGL, and are in violation of it.

interesting, I do not think that holds up for practical reasons, doesn't change that I am in violation of something

 

[Steel_Wind]

Sure. I'm not a litigator - I'm a scholar! Apart from anything else I have to set exam questions which invite students to undertake this sort of analysis.

Well, that's fair - though the answer doesn't really change.

I am typing on a tablet, zoomed in, so I did not even see it was you posting, else I would not have replied in that manner.

Still, the point remains - most of these issues will never have an answer tested in court. It is worthwhile reminding lay people that these issues don't have answers and likely never will. The common law is a private litigant funded injustice system. Most of these edge cases have no certain answer - and that is okay, too. We muddle on without too many concerns just the same.

A system focused on property rights cares about money, and generally addresses those issues ranked in priority to the money each issue is worth. Add to that a settlement / resolution rate short of trial of ~98% and it is no surprise we do not have certain answers about nearly as much as lay people think we do, or should.

 

[Greg Benage]

Okay, whichever one of you is a lawyer, please explain why this doesn’t qualify as acceptance by performance under U.S. contract law.

 

[pemerton]

my legal relationship for the Majestic Fantasy RPG is with Matt Finch not Wizards of the Coast.

You may also have a legal relationship with WotC, if your work contains material that would infringe WotC's copyrights except for the fact that Matt Finch sub-licensed to you under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.

That's a feature, not a bug, of the v 1.0/10.a ecology: it creates an intricate network of legal relationships (powers and permissions) that underpin it.

 

[Umbran]

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?

Well, no. For one thing, OGL 1.1 has not officially been released yet.

For another, one of the main issues under dispute is that, unless the license you agreed to says terms may be changed, then you can't generally unilaterally change them, much less change people to a completely new license without their knowingly establishing a new agreement.

And, that's an issue. For example, we here are all part of a discussion. But someone who doesn't haunt message boards could come across a PDF of the SRD, with its associated license, and in good faith follow the terms and make their own thing, and be in complete compliance with v1.0a.

So, how does WotC have the right to call them to task and financial burden for that, when they've never even heard of OGL v1.1? There's literally tens of thousands of copies of the old license floating out there, and WotC can't edit them to update people that the license they carry is no longer useable - the license specifically says the thing is perpetual, and has no terms of termination other than breaking terms explicitly in the license.