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

[Prime_Evil]

My only concern with the interpretation the licence operates on an opt-in basis is the mention of pantomimes in the covered works. Could this be construed to include private games? In other words, is there a chance that using OGL v1.1 materials in a game could equal acceptance by performance? Maybe I'm just being paranoid here.

 

[pemerton]

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.

No probs at all! And I agree that there is a line between reality and pointless speculation or hair-splitting, though our different perspectives may mean we draw that line in slightly different places.

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 rate 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.

Yep to all of this!

 

[S'mon]

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

I saw a US contract lawyer give the example of "I offer these shiny beads for £1 million. By going to sleep any time before December 31st, you accept my offer."

Normally a contract offer can be accepted by performance, these are called Unilateral Contracts. But there still has to be actual acceptance, in the word's natural meaning. So in practice this kind of attempt to bind someone who's not really agreed, would get laughed out of court.

 

[Steel_Wind]

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

It doesn't hold up for basic contract formation reasons, either. As for negative option contract formation, that is outright unlawful in many jurisdictions.

Nice try. The arrogance is unwise though and fairly drips from the page if what you are quoting is a final draft.

 

[kjdavies]

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.

Y'know, I actually had to go look. I'd assumed 'SRD 5.1' was the new-not-6e version, not the current one. I imagine it would help a lot if they created a new version of the SRD, even if it has all the same text but "5.1" filed off and "5.2" put in. As I see it, if they use 'SRD 5.1' there are/have been/will have been two different licenses on it depending when you started using it. Or, as you say, depending on when you found the copy you're working from.

 

[shadowoflameth]

So, it seems to me that (with all respect to the publishers affected). If you are not publishing and profiting from content, the only effect will be that there will be less, (maybe no) 3rd party books and suppliments available in One D&D. It doesn't mean that you won't be able to play any way and with any elements that you like. It means that no other publisher is likely to come up with something that you want if WotC doesn't. If you are publishing game content, then for better or worse, WotC will likely come after you for a (maybe large) cut. According to the OP, in many instances, they'll have a legally valid case.

 

[Greg Benage]

I saw a US contract lawyer give the example of "I offer these shiny beads for £1 million. By going to sleep any time before December 31st, you accept my offer."

Normally a contract offer can be accepted by performance, these are called Unilateral Contracts. But there still has to be actual acceptance, in the word's natural meaning. So in practice this kind of attempt to bind someone who's not really agreed, would get laughed out of court.

Okay, I'm actually out here reading up on contracts, doctrine and practice, god help me, and from what I'm reading, the instance of acceptance by performance in 1.1 is rather different from your example, but I accept that this is likely the best answer y'all are going to give me.

 

[Enrahim2]

I saw a US contract lawyer give the example of "I offer these shiny beads for £1 million. By going to sleep any time before December 31st, you accept my offer."

Normally a contract offer can be accepted by performance, these are called Unilateral Contracts. But there still has to be actual acceptance, in the word's natural meaning. So in practice this kind of attempt to bind someone who's not really agreed, would get laughed out of court.

I guess it is not quite this simple. If for instance if you press "OK" on the license notification on software installation, I guess you cannot claim "I did it despite accepting"?

 

[kjdavies]

I saw a US contract lawyer give the example of "I offer these shiny beads for £1 million. By going to sleep any time before December 31st, you accept my offer."

Normally a contract offer can be accepted by performance, these are called Unilateral Contracts. But there still has to be actual acceptance, in the word's natural meaning. So in practice this kind of attempt to bind someone who's not really agreed, would get laughed out of court.

I understand that if taken to court, a situation like this would likely be judged against the offeror. (I forget the name of the principle, but it assumes the offerer is sincere in the offer; if the offeree accepts the offeror is stuck for it.)

The offer is nonsensical and unreasonable, and when the offeree declines a judge would likely back them.

If those beads were actually £10M in jewels (the offeror made a horrible mistake) and the offeree was willing to pay a £1M for them, the judge would likely tell the offeror, "hey, you offered, they accepted, hand over".

 

[Siltoneous]

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.

Maybe they don't have to. As others here have suggested, it would be much easier to go after those parties who sell/offer the offending, 'unlicensed' content. One it's much easier because it's considerably smaller target(DriveThruRPG, various VTT's, etc..).

Besides, if the various parties feels it's unfair, then all they need to do is bring a case against WoTC to prove .... .