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

[mamba]

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

I expect they will do something similar going forward.

adventures are much easier than a whole rpg

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Poor Stellagama. Just received my softcover Cepheus Deluxe rulebook. OGL 1.0a in the back with the older and newer SRD cited but I don’t know if their is any real D&D in it at all as it is OGL Traveller and the OGL was probably used as the industry just accepted it so why not ….

 

[mamba]

A good post:

“If the license does not say it is irrevocable, then it is revocable by default.”
This is actually not correct… for a lawyer focused on IP I am surprised he makes such a rookie mistake

 

[Staffan]

I can't help but wonder how much of this all got started by a (justifiable?) jump to conclusions. By which I mean... maybe Wizards was just putting out out tests to see 'How much would you pay to be able to claim you're 5e/One D&D compatible?' - probably to shut their bosses at Hasbro up.

I mean, if they wanted to preserve the current OGL while also offering the option of claiming compatibility at some cost, there's already a model for that: the d20 System Trademark License. That was a second license that set out terms for using a logo indicating compatibility – not involving any direct kickbacks, but you did have to follow a lot of restrictions. They could easily use a similar model.

 

[Riley]

adventures are much easier than a whole rpg

True. Nonetheless, the Kobolds have clarified that they intend to clone 5e as an open rules system:

Kobold Press Announces New Core Fantasy Experiment

Kobold Press Announces New Core Fantasy Game As Dungeons & Dragons moves toward the 50th anniversary of the game, foundational changes are afoot in the tabletop roleplaying game arena. While we wait to see exactly what shape the Open Gaming License might take in this new era, Kobold Press is...

koboldpress.com

 

[Siltoneous]

Figured you legal types might like this link. Here is a 2021 YouTube inverview with an IP council at the Canadian firm Dentons about his 340 page thesis on the OGL. Critical Roll was the one that found it, but I started falling into a sound slumber after listening to the actual interview.

 

[Knuffeldraak]

“If the license does not say it is irrevocable, then it is revocable by default.”
This is actually not correct… for a lawyer focused on IP I am surprised he makes such a rookie mistake

I'm astounded that right as they start to explain the definitions, he just simply takes 'Work' as definition, and not 'Original Work'//'Derivative Work', both of which have very important differences here. Original Works can be protected by copyright, while Derivative Works cannot.

 

[kjdavies]

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 an awfully nice RPG you've got there, it would be a shame if anything happened to it.

 

[Tazawa]

I'm astounded that right as they start to explain the definitions, he just simply takes 'Work' as definition, and not 'Original Work'//'Derivative Work', both of which have very important differences here. Original Works can be protected by copyright, while Derivative Works cannot.

Better not tell that to anyone making a movie based on a novel!

Seriously, you are wrong. Open game content derived from someone else’s open game content is copyrightable. It’s the new portions that are copyrightable.

 

[kjdavies]

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?(!)

That's how I've been reading it in the last day or two. As discussed with a colleague, you shouldn't read contracts like you read English. When reading contracts you need to read them in context of the contract, no assumptions of what's outside it.

Because 'OGL v1.0a is unauthorized' is in this license, it applies if you accept this license. The correct place to revoke it would be outside this license. Ditto the bits about other SRDs. I now read this mess as:

• SRD 5.1 is licensed under OGL v1.1 [leaving out SRD 5.1 is currently licensed under OGL v1.0a... it would make things easier if it were something other than SRD 5.1, even if all the text was the same);
• SRD 5.1 is no longer licensed under OGL v1.1 (i.e. OGL v1.0a is 'unauthorized'... for SRD 5.1);
• other SRDs are not licensed under OGL v1.1;
• other SRDs must be licensed under another license (which they currently are: OGL v1.0a).

I might be totally wrong (I trust you'd know better, I'm not actually trained in law)... but this is consistent and the various elements don't depend on assumptions of what is outside this license.

That someone could read it otherwise might not have been the intent behind how it was presented... but I can't rule it out and I doubt Hasbro is unhappy about that.