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

[AdmundfortGeographer]

....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]

Until OGL 1.1 is updated (Spanish Inquisition meme)

 

[Enrahim2]

A possible loophole for OSR creators?

I present to you commercial term IX J : "You will not try to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, (...)"

 

[Enrahim2]

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.

Yes, I can really understand it feels that way. But how much of that feeling do you think is caused by what wizards actually has said, vs what others have claimed or speculated about wizards and what they claim wizards are saying?

 

[reelo]

I present to you commercial term IX J : "You will not try to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, (...)"

But 1.0 and 1.0(a) are TWO DISTINCT versions of the license.

 

[Greg Benage]

Alexander Macris has posted an article on Substack raising several interesting legal points about the wording of the 1.1 licence:

The Perfidious Treachery of WOTC

Does OGL 1.1 Mean the End of Open Gaming?

arbiterofworlds.substack.com

Notably:

Read the first sentence: "you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023.” Now read the last sentence: “If you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023, your only option is to agree.”

Arrgh! He's also mixing license language and propaganda together. This bit is from the Q&A, not the license. He writes of the above:

This clause is intended to be reassuring, but it’s anything but. Read the first sentence: "you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023.” Now read the last sentence: “If you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023, your only option is to agree.”

It's not a bloody "clause!" It's propaganda from the Q&A!

 

[Staffan]

I present to you commercial term IX J : "You will not try to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, (...)"

Any lawyer who want to weigh in on the legality of that term? I feel like if "No shenanigans" was valid in contracts, every contract would have it and since they don't it's not.

 

[Greg Benage]

Any lawyer who want to weigh in on the legality of that term? I feel like if "No shenanigans" was valid in contracts, every contract would have it and since they don't it's not.

IANAL but they can terminate at any time for any reason or no reason at all. If they think it's shenanigans, it's shenanigans.

 

[Jack Daniel]

....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]

But 1.0 and 1.0(a) are TWO DISTINCT versions of the license.

No. 1.0 an 1.0a are two distinct versions of the license. The parenthetical form — 1.0(a) — implies that the "a" can be there or not, so it's talking about both at the same time.

 

[jgbrowning]

No. 1.0 an 1.0a are two distinct versions of the license. The parenthetical form — 1.0(a) — implies that the "a" can be there or not, so it's talking about both at the same time.

I don't know if that's the case. Every usage of 1.0(a) in the document is in the singular, not the plural.

joe b.

 

[jgbrowning]

I don't know if that's the case. Every usage of 1.0(a) in the document is in the singular, not the plural.

joe b.

And while we're talking about potential grammar minutiae, consider also that the words "System Reference Document" and the abbreviation "SRD" are always used in the singular as well. There have been several SRDs, and the one that 1.1 is referencing is always stated to be the most-recent one (I believe 5.1 is the most recent, right?).

And in addition to that, something called the "System Reverence Document (draft version)" that has a copyright of 1999, 2000 that was also released with Open Game Content and referenced by a 3rd party publisher and appeared in Section 15's released under the OGL 1.0 license. That is again technically not the same as a "System Reference Document" as used in the 1.1 language.

There is much lack of specificity.

joe b.