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

[Mistwell]

I'll just point out that the people who distributed the OGL 1.1 to the community have indicated that this is the legal text plus commentary and that the linked-to "just the legal text" document is not materially different. You might be correct, but if so all the reporting from Gizmodo on down is all very inaccurate.

I don't believe the reporting is commenting on this particular commentary document. I think the reporting is on the full license text. My wanting to see the full legalese version wouldn't change what lay reporters would say about it. Why would it? Even if they're experts reading the the legalese version, they would be writing about it to a lay person.

Of course I could be wrong. But I am willing to bet the "just the legal text" has more than this.

 

[Mistwell]

I really do think that this leaked document was presented as "this is the OGL 1.1" to the 3PPs.

I understand why the US contract lawyers here think "This can't possibly be intended to be the real contract!". I'm sure their law firms would do a much better job. But I'm pretty certain that the 3PPs under NDA were given this and told it was the offer. I really don't think there is some other, "True OGL 1.1" that was presented to them but has not been leaked.

Then why does this very document say there is a legalize version in a link, using words of "the actual license," and why is there no way to agree to this license in that text?

 

[S'mon]

Then why does this very document say there is a legalize version in a link, using words of "the actual license," and why is there no way to agree to this license in that text?

Because it's just a scraping of the raw text, from probably three separate linked docs - the intro, the OGL non-commercial, the OGL commercial.

 

[Langy]

This is from the agreement near the top:

"The actual license is available through the hyperlinks below, and if you’re comfortable with legalese (or somehow actually enjoy reading legalese) feel free to jump ahead to those links."

"The preceding material is not part of the OGL 1.1. To access the subdivision of OGL 1.1 that applies to your use of SRD content, click below: OGL 1.1: Non-Commercial OGL 1.1: Commercial OGL 1.1: Non-Commercial"

Then then get more text with clearly marked COMMENTS section. The part they explain is the "We’ve included explanations and examples alongside the legal language to help make the OGL easier to understand and comply with."

What do you mean sources would have mentioned it - leakers mention all the time the agreement, but this is the only source that actually provided a PDF copy of it, and we don't have THEIR comment on it at all. Nobody I know of has said "Yes this PDF is the entire license". Not once that I've seen. Have you seen that? There is no conspiracy - I don't even think anyone has been handed this particular document exactly and asked if this is a commentary that came with the license or the license text itself. I do know of one source that said it's the commentary which came with links to the actual licenses however.

Of course the receiver needs to press the links. There isn't even a set of signature lines at the end! You literally cannot agree to this agreement, so far, from the text we have in that PDF.

I am not saying this is fake - this is not fake at all. I am saying this isn't the full license text but is instead a layman's document included with the licenses in some fashion.

The document has had hyperlinks removed and the contents of those hyperlinks copied into the posted document.

This is almost certainly the full license text and you're simply mistaken.

 

[Mistwell]

Because it's just a scraping of the raw text, from probably three separate linked docs - the intro, the OGL non-commercial, the OGL commercial.

Could be. Sure looks like there is verbiage missing and some sections being summarized to me. But you're right, it could be just that.

If so...damn this is a poorly written document. No major law firm would have written an important license agreement like this that I know of.

 

[Mistwell]

The document has had hyperlinks removed and the contents of those hyperlinks copied into the posted document.

This is almost certainly the full license text and you're simply mistaken.

Could be. I guess we will see.

 

[S'mon]

Could be. Sure looks like there is verbiage missing and some sections being summarized to me. But you're right, it could be just that.

If so...damn this is a poorly written document. No major law firm would have written an important license agreement like this that I know of.

I do think it's odd. However while I don't know how WoTC work, but afaics the tone does look rather like stuff that they do actually present as legal documents, fake mateyness and all.

 

[S'mon]

http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

Page 1 & 2 appears to be a copy-paste of the Introduction. What were links at the bottom of page 2 are now just text
"OGL 1.1: Non-Commercial OGL 1.1: Commercial"

Then at the very bottom of page 2 is repeated "OGL 1.1 Non-Commercial" - this appears to be the title of the material appearing on the next page. It's easy to miss. Then page 3+ appears to be a copy-paste of the text of "OGL Non-Commercial".

Remember that the OGL is purportedly intended to be read and understood by non-lawyers, the general fandom/player base creating D&D materials. The language needs to be non-technical.

 

[S'mon]

So-called software wrapper agreements are the subject matter of legislation in many jurisdictions (especially in the USA). For consumers, to purchase the software which indicates on the box (or the webpage) that it is subject to a license agreement -- you are essentially caught by a contract you never read or had the chance to read. Otherwise, if you decline, you can return the software for a full refund.

If it sounds like flim-flammery when it comes to contract formation that's largely because it is.

From what I remember, in England if you download software it's a service and you are bound by the license agreement you clicked on pre-download, whereas if you buy software over the counter it's sale of goods and you are not bound by text you could not read prior to the point of sale. So you are bound by the web page terms for a download. For a counter sale you are bound by what's ON the box, but probably not bound by what's IN the box.

In practice it does not matter much for consumer contracts as these are now heavily regulated.

 

[mhd]

If this was done on a leak that isn't yet official, or based on official information that isn't yet active (Jan 23rd), then this is absolutely actring in bad faith to every 3PP hosted there.

It’s not a thing that happened. It’s a hypothetical.

Yes, my "quote" was a purely hypothetical scenario, sorry if I didn't make that obvious enough.