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

[Nylanfs]

http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

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.

The OGL was supposed to be read and understood by laypeople. This appears to be another departure from what has been.

 

[rcade]

If there are things in the System Reference Document that Hasbro doesn't want to share any more (hypothetical example: the Derro), instead of attacking the OGL 1.0, could Hasbro achieve that purpose by releasing a new SRD that includes them in the Product Identity clause? This would make future publishers using the OGL reluctant to use those new additions to PI. Commercial publishers will take the safest course and not use the Derro, even if they think it ought to continue to be reusable.

Additionally, because new editions of D&D are where almost all players end up, Hasbro has the power to hold on to the PI of everything new in each edition, as well as every revision to anything. If they keep more out of the next SRD they won't be competing with open gaming content on any of those parts of their game. The more years that pass, the less competitors will be able to compete with them because players want new stuff under current rules.

 

[Enrahim2]

It seems to me like there's another level of ambiguity. "On or after January 13" could be read as modifying "D&D content you create", but it could alternatively be read as modifying "You cannot earn income". I'm not sure the distinction actually matters much, given WotC's underlying assertion that they can unilaterally change the terms of the OGL whenever they feel like it, but in another context, this seems like the sort of statement that would really need to be phrased unambiguously.

(IANAL) That ambiguity is in the faq trying to explain the legalese. In order to disambiguate you would have to look at the legal text.

The 13th of january obviously refers to the date the agreement takes effect. A main line interpretation is that this faq claim is supposed to be a convoluted effect of "no longer authorized. I however find the folloing interpretation much more straight forward: The commercial agreement claim to be accepted if you use Licensed Content commercially, and once the agreement is in effect at January 13th, section II prohibits using Licensed Content without complying to 1.1.

Hence the faq give a straight forward easier to read (though maybe a bit clumsy) description of this particular legal claim. That it seemed like the general mood among the lawyers that this claim is not enforcable doesn't invalidate the faq description of the legal document.

 

[jgbrowning]

Every culture has its language, traditions, terms of art, and conventions.

In the law, and especially in contracts, the general rule is that the singular means plural, he means he/she/they/it and person means individual, partnership, corporation, trust, or other entity. Typically, this is mentioned in a clause in some part of the legalese of the contract, but as we don't have the legal text, I can't yet point you specifically to it -- but I know enough to know it is overwhelmingly likely to be there.

tl;dr: you are jumping at shadows here.

It wouldn't be the first time. But, in this case regarding the use of singular it's not referring to a person or an entity, but to a particular collection of documents that contained only OGC: the SRD. But as is obvious, I'm not a lawyer, so I'll bow to your knowledge of community convention.

joe b.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I must say that the document as presented is not the legal OGL 1.1 but some kind of precis/commentary however;
Would I be correct in surmising that:
Stuff derived via the OGL 1.0(a) and derived from OGC (SRD) other than SRD 5.1 are not covered by this licence unless one accepts this licence in which case one engages not to use OGL 1.0(a) in any context.
So by my estimation Pathfinder 1 & 2 are fine, they are OGC via OGL 1.0 and SRD 3.5
Stuff like Esper Genesis or Evil Hat's Everyday Heroes are more problematic but defensible as long as the creators do not accept OGL 1.1 and they may have to explicitly renounce using 1.1
Any thing using 5.1 going forward with no legacy precedent will be harder to defend under the OGL 1.0(a)

That may be WotC's position -- the problem is that it is not a legally accurate position. The SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a -- not maybe -- FOR SURE it was.

They can't easily get rid of that 5.1 SRD legacy anymore than they can get rid of the SRD 3.5 legacy. The difference is, they don't care anymore about 3.5 -- but they DO NOT want Paizo to be able do the same thing to them with 5e that they did to them with 3.5. That's a real concern, I'm sure.

Problem: I'm not sure how WotC can actually avoid that result. What is evident to me most of all is that WotC wants to lock down the VTT space so that it is not covered by any OGL and they have complete control over it. They want their own VTT to be exclusive with OneD&D. They don't want a digital competitor in that space.

This explains the purchase of DDB for $140+ million (that was a LOT of money - unprecedented money in RPG land). They didn't pay that to just sell PDFs that weren't PDFs. They paid that because they are going to use it to leverage their own VTT in an attempt to recoup monthly subscription money from DMs and players alike.

And they can't do that effectively without making it exclusive. And as VTTs are allowed under OGL 1.0a, they need to shed that legal capability somehow.

When you look at the text of what Battlezoo released, link above, there are certain blatant lies in that document which try to re-write history, pretending certain things were not intended to be covered by the OGL 1.0a -- interactive digital products and VTTs chief among them. That is a lie of course, we know those products were intended to be permitted; WotC's own FAQ said so until 2021.

So why say something in a document that isn't true if you don't have to? Because they feel they have to. Those lies + the money spent on DDB tells you what this is really all about.

It's about locking down the VTT space for 6e. They want to be able to earn World of Warcraft subscription money from DMs and players alike, monthly. That's the "under-monetization" that WotC is aiming to fix with $140+ million purchase. Earning WoW money is the dream of every computer and video game exec in the history of ever; that's the Golden Trophy. And they can't do that as easily if people have another, non-subscription VTT venue on which to play 6e.

The rest of this is just a shopping list of publishing druthers and OGL 1.0a after-the-fact remorse. They lived with all of that for 23 years. None of that was determinative. The VTT stuff, underscored by the pandemic and the ability to monetize it? That's different. The purchase of DDB for a HOLY CRAP large sum of money? That's different - that's new.

 

[S'mon]

The OGL was supposed to be read and understood by laypeople. This appears to be another departure from what has been.

With the fake mateyness masking sneering menace, OGL 1.1 kinda reads like it killed nice Mr OGL 1.0 and his wife Mrs OGL-FAQ, and is now wearing Mr OGL 1.0's remains as a skin suit, Hannibal Lector style.

 

[Nikosandros]

With the fake mateyness masking sneering menace, OGL 1.1 kinda reads like it killed nice Mr OGL 1.0 and his wife Mrs OGL-FAQ, and is now wearing Mr OGL 1.0's remains as a skin suit, Hannibal Lector style.

That's disturbingly accurate.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Ok I need some clarification here, if you would be so kind.

That may be WotC's position -- the problem is that it is not a legally accurate position. The SRD 5.1 was released under the OGL 1.0a -- not maybe -- FOR SURE it was.

They can't easily get rid of that 5.1 SRD legacy anymore than they can get rid of the SRD 3.5 legacy. The difference is, they don't care anymore about 3.5 -- but they DO NOT want Paizo to be able do the same thing to them with 5e that they did to them with 3.5. That's a real concern, I'm sure.

Problem: I'm not sure how WotC can actually avoid that result. What is evident to me most of all is that WotC wants to lock down the VTT space so that it is not covered by any OGL and they have complete control over it. They want their own VTT to be exclusive with OneD&D. They don't want a digital competitor in that space.

Are you saying that because that SRD 5.1 was published initially under the 1.0(a) OGL it can still be used but would require a court battle with WoTC?

This explains the purchase of DDB for $140+ million (that was a LOT of money - unprecedented money in RPG land). They didn't pay that to just sell PDFs that weren't PDFs. They paid that because they are going to use it to leverage their own VTT in an attempt to recoup monthly subscription money from DMs and players alike.

And they can't do that effectively without making it exclusive. And as VTTs are allowed under OGL 1.0a, they need to shed that legal capability somehow.

When you look at the text of what Battlezoo released, link above, there are certain blatant lies in that document which try to re-write history, pretending certain things were not intended to be covered by the OGL 1.0a -- interactive digital products and VTTs chief among them. That is a lie of course, we know those products were intended to be permitted; WotC's own FAQ said so until 2021.

You are really talking about the rules automation with in the VTT not the rest of the application?

 

[S'mon]

(IANAL) That ambiguity is in the faq trying to explain the legalese. In order to disambiguate you would have to look at the legal text.

The 13th of january obviously refers to the date the agreement takes effect. A main line interpretation is that this faq claim is supposed to be a convoluted effect of "no longer authorized. I however find the folloing interpretation much more straight forward: The commercial agreement claim to be accepted if you use Licensed Content commercially, and once the agreement is in effect at January 13th, section II prohibits using Licensed Content without complying to 1.1.

Hence the faq give a straight forward easier to read (though maybe a bit clumsy) description of this particular legal claim. That it seemed like the general mood among the lawyers that this claim is not enforcable doesn't invalidate the faq description of the legal document.

That is ...very interesting. I (& Macris, and others) have been mixing up explanatory text with licence clause text, I think. Maybe all those years of reading EU Directives have finally got to me - in those, in Civil Law courts like the ECJ, the explanation of intent stuff often over rides the plain meaning of the actual articles.

If the explanations have no legal weight, then WoTC are apparently NOT claiming to terminate OGL 1.0 for those who don't accept OGL 1.1?(!)

 

[S'mon]

Ok I need some clarification here, if you would be so kind.

Are you saying that because that SRD 5.1 was published initially under the 1.0(a) OGL it can still be used but would require a court battle with WoTC?

Legally it can still be used since AFAICS they have no power to revoke the release.

What is uncertain is whether WoTC are really claiming to be able to revoke the release, as the explanatory text seems to be saying, or only ban OGL 1.0 use for signatories of OGL 1.1, which seems to be the strict legal reading of the actual terms.

If they are claiming to revoke the release, then they might conceivably sue someone who relied on OGL 1.0 for use of the 5e SRD. That claim would require a court battle to defend.

(Just been marking for hours, brain fuzzy, but hopefully I'll go over the leaked OGL terms again soon & get it clearer)