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

[mamba]

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

I understand the OGL 1.1 just fine, it reads ‘stay the heck away from this’

 

[mamba]

is it 5.5 or is it a new system not beholden to the d20 system the ogl or D&D at all?

will have to be the latter, but I expect them to steer close to 5e

 

[S'mon]

Yeah, the Supreme Court of Canada is starting to roll their eyes at the English courts now. It used to be that when you cited a decision of the Court of Appeal or H.L. in front of a Canadian court, they would ask counsel why that presumptively would not be followed. It was a very serious question, too.

They don't ask that anymore. After the HL retreated from Anns v. Merton and Canada doubled down on it, we have been increasingly treating the English courts as the old Mum with dementia. After 20 years of "WTF is up with the English?" we don't even ask that anymore, either.

Brilliant. Yeah my more left-wing academic colleagues have come up with a thing called "Neo-Classical Contract Law" which is basically the opposite of what it says, it's very much Anns v Merton (which was Tort, right? No biggie) Meanwhile I have to explain to my students that if anything our actual judges/courts are doubling down on a strict Classical approach and all that neo-Classical guff is for the birds (and the Canadians, apparently).

-Simon after 1 cider.

 

[Cadence]

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?

I'm taking the document that's out being something WotC said to at least some people.

And so it kind of feels like it's what WotC said they wanted?

"previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."

"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial"

It feels very implausible to me that the document didn't originate with WotC. And even if they want to take it back, it feels like it proclaims the thinking of some folks pretty high up.

 

[S'mon]

FWIW, Erik Mona was apparently breathing FIRE when he rallied the Paizo troops yesterday at an all staff meeting. They were cheering him on via Facebook, too.

Something's up.

I can imagine Erik Mona's speech now:

"There may come a time when the courage of Paizo fails! An age of woe and shattered OGLs, when the age of 3PPs comes crashing down! But it is not this day! By all you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Persons of the Third Party Publishing Community!"

 

[Steel_Wind]

OK so I had a look. Macris was trying to parse the text of the FAQ as if it were contract terms, when it's supposed to be explanatory,

The most relevant actual term:

1.ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels.

OK so I feel increasingly that my initial instinct was right. The new FAQ seems to make pre-5.1 SRD material Unlicensed, and WoTC is focused on getting people to agree they won't use it.

Conversely, they SAY here - in an actual term - that they are talking about Product Identity. PI was pretty restricted in the OGL 1.0, and obviously did NOT cover the contents of the 3e/3.5e/5e SRDs! It does say Unlicensed Content 'includes' PI, with the implication that it goes beyond PI, though. So they seem to be setting up a bait and switch for the unwary, who may think they're only agreeing not to use PI, when really they're agreeing to not use anything outside the 5.1 SRD - including the older SRDs released under the OGL 1.0.

My head hurts now.

I think you are tilting at windmills now. This sort of careful analysis on non-legal language is, ultimately, a waste of effort and glia.

The actual language of Not Open GL 1.1 will come soon enough. Save your efforts for that dive, I think.

 

[Enrahim2]

Conversely, they SAY here - in an actual term - that they are talking about Product Identity. PI was pretty restricted in the OGL 1.0, and obviously did NOT cover the contents of the 3e/3.5e/5e SRDs! It does say Unlicensed Content 'includes' PI, with the implication that it goes beyond PI, though. So they seem to be setting up a bait and switch for the unwary, who may think they're only agreeing not to use PI, when really they're agreeing to not use anything outside the 5.1 SRD - including the older SRDs released under the OGL 1.0

Oh, this is great! The definition of "Unlicensed Content" actually are very vague. There are only 2 conditions described. One is that is non 5.1 srd published by wizards, but critically it doesn't say all. That there is not an implied all can also be gathered as that would have made the next part redundant. They then specify that this "include" certain monsters etc, then with a clarifying dash refering to previous ogls PI term. Again they do not say it include "all", when they describe monsters, spells etc, which might be interpreted that there are monsters etc that falls outside "unlicensed content". However the clarifying dash could be interpreted that this modulates which of those "included" categories are actually included, and hence it prohibits all previous PI.

In short the only thing clearly "Unlicensed Content" is PI that appear in works by wizard, and do not appear in the 5.1 SRD.

This way of restricting "Unlisenced content" make perfect sense if wizard want to keep exploiting 1.0a! There are nothing requiring any OGC to be considered "Unlicensed Content", and hence lisencees are not restricted from using 1.0a content according to section 9. If wizards wanted to try lock down 1.0a content it would have been much simpler to just state "Any wizards content not considered "Licensed Content"?

I think the formulation as such clearly seem to define OGC as outside "Unlicensed Content" by virtue of the obvious contrasting of the given example. This might leave some grey areas like tsr era works currently published by wizards, but as there are no OGL currently allowing distribution of such at all, this particular lisence do not need to take a stance in that question.

Indeed this is a strong indicator that old OGC is intended to be exactly the relevant exception to "Unlicensed Content", Which seem like a very weird distinction to want to uphold with so many words if wizard has intended to "nullify"/"terminate" or "revoke" 1.0a

 

[Riley]

will have to be the latter, but I expect them to steer close to 5e

Kobold Press published 4e adventures without either the GSL or the OGL.

I expect they will do something similar going forward.

 

[Enrahim2]

I'm taking the document that's out being something WotC said to at least some people.

And so it kind of feels like it's what WotC said they wanted?

"previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement."

"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial"

It feels very implausible to me that the document didn't originate with WotC. And even if they want to take it back, it feels like it proclaims the thinking of some folks pretty high up.

Yes, but as have been argued, there are more reasonable interpretations off those two quotes once you put your legalese glaces on ond start reading the context. These quotes were initially leaked and published without the needed context to have any good chance of recognising these alternative in context far more reasonable interpretations.

So someone somewhere leaked very spesific exerps, particularly easy to misunderstand if viewed trough a lense of mistrust and out of context, and let that ferment for a few days.. I am not surprised at all that these misunderstandings have now set emotional roots. And yes, this is caused by words originally written by wizards. But it was someone else that took these words and put it into the context that now make you feel like you do.

 

[Enrahim2]

(And I keep forgetting to mention IANAL)...