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

[Steel_Wind]

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.

No, that's wrong. If you watch the Battlezoo video on Youtube, they explained why the text at the hyperlinks was left out. The document was presented to each of the original recipients under a NDA.

What had happened was that because the text at the hyperlink could not be compared as between the several versions of the document (this went out to several recipients) and the computer accessing the links could be traced, they reasonably feared that due to both IP traces as well as subtle changes in the text of what was behind each of the links would give away who had leaked the document. The recipients all worried about a reprisal and that WotC would exact revenge for breaching the NDA. So NONE of the text behind the hyperlinks was included in the document linked above that Mistwell was commenting on.

@Mistwell is absolutely right, this is not the actual 1.1, it is the "layman's language" which accompanied it. From a commercial analysis perspective, this is helpful, but it isn't the legalese of the Not Open GL 1.1 license.

 

[Enrahim2]

No, that's wrong. If you watch the Battlezoo video on Youtube, they explained why the text at the hyperlinks was left out. The document was presented to each of the original recipients under a NDA.

But from memory he also explained that he had been in contact with several sources able to confirm that this was indeed the genuine document. And those sources should have been able to access the links and should have been easily able to confirm if there at least was critically important differences between the document we have seen, and what they had access to. If the links indeed were going to a much more strongly legally formulated version, confirming this leaked document sound in that case to at least be lying by omission..

 

[kenada]

Moreover, if this is actually the case, this would be an example of gross misrepresentation as it would either require the receiver to press the links or assess and recognize the purported legalese as obviously non legalise to understand that the provided text was indeed not the real legal language. I stand as exibit 1 that the text is convincing enough to a layman that even with its fakeness argued by a (presumed) legal expert, I still believe it to be the actual intended legal text.

The formatting was stripped out of the document as a measure to avoid identifying the source. There have been some screenshots shared of a formatted document, which shows the legalese identified to distinguish it from the commentary.

 

[Steel_Wind]

But from memory he also explained that he had been in contact with several sources able to confirm that this was indeed the genuine document. And those sources should have been able to access the links and should have been easily able to confirm if there at least was critically important differences between the document we have seen, and what they had access to. If the links indeed were going to a much more strongly legally formulated version, confirming this leaked document sound in that case to at least be lying by omission..

The problem is, even for lawyers, to compare the words, punctuation and spacing in a document of legal text takes a ridiculous amount of time and is beyond tedious. When we do so with offering circulars and other "liability documents" for public companies, we use a method called "slugging lines" which ignores the middle of the sentence in each paragraph. My point: even lawyers don't take the proper time to do this carefully.

If they had included the text at the hyperlinks -- because that text was likely subtly altered from link to link, the leaker would have been identified if the linked text was copied+pasted.

Are you following me here?

 

[Nylanfs]

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.

I'm still catching up, so I'm about 8ish hours behind but wanted to ask this now so I didn't forget it by the time I did get caught up (damn ADD brain).

They will HAVE to release an update to the SRD v5.1, ie v5.2 or v5.5 etc because the same content can NOT be licensed under two contradicting licenses right? And if this is the case then creators will be able continue to use v5.1 of the SRD for OGL v1.0a based materials?

 

[Cadence]

I'm still catching up, so I'm about 8ish hours behind but wanted to ask this now so I didn't forget it by the time I did get caught up (damn ADD brain).

They will HAVE to release an update to the SRD v5.1, ie v5.2 or v5.5 etc because the same content can NOT be licensed under two contradicting licenses right? And if this is the case then creators will be able continue to use v5.1 of the SRD for OGL v1.0a based materials?

The WotC claim is that they can revoke the 1.0a. The draft 1.1 explicitly allows them to change 1.1 with 30 days notice.

I believe FATE was released under both 1.0a and CC.

I imagine there are other arguments that let WotC release there own stuff under whatever they want to.

 

[kenada]

They will HAVE to release an update to the SRD v5.1, ie v5.2 or v5.5 etc because the same content can NOT be licensed under two contradicting licenses right? And if this is the case then creators will be able continue to use v5.1 of the SRD for OGL v1.0a based materials?

The copyright owner can distribute material under whatever licenses it wants. It’s not uncommon in software to distribute it under an open license and offer a proprietary license for those who do not want to deal with the open license (particularly if the open license is perceived as particularly risky or viral like the GNU AGPL v3).

 

[Enrahim2]

The WotC claim is that they can revoke the 1.0a.

If wizards had claimed to "revoke" 1.0a they would have used that word. What they have claimed is that it is "no longer authorized". The attempt at equating these two concepts are so legaly shaky, that I struggle to see this quote as anything but a strawman.

 

[Cadence]

If wizards had claimed to "revoke" 1.0a they would have used that word. What they have claimed is that it is "no longer authorized". The attempt at equating these two concepts are so legaly shaky, that I struggle to see this quote as anything but a strawman.

I was using revoke colloquially and not legally. IANAL, but it sure feels like they are attempting to get away with effectively revoking 1.0a without saying that word, and doubting that anyone will dare fight them on it.

 

[reelo]

I was using revoke colloquially and not legally. IANAL, but it sure feels like they are attempting to get away with effectively revoking 1.0a without saying that word, and doubting that anyone will dare fight them on it.

....by the way, the leaked document only mentions OGL 1.0(a) as being unauthorized. No mention of OGL 1.0 (not "a")

A possible loophole for OSR creators? [emoji848]