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

[Langy]

It is not so clear, as I still fail to see how the leaked OGL-1.1 do not acheive that if using my interpretation of "no longer authorized" (That is that the only plain language effect of it is that you cannot use 1.1 OGC in 1.0a publications)

That doesn't give WOTC monopolistic VTT rights, though. VTT competitors would still be able to use your OGL 1.0a license to include your content in a VTT, or you could separately license it for the VTT.

 

[Enrahim2]

That doesn't give WOTC monopolistic VTT rights, though. VTT competitors would still be able to use your OGL 1.0a license to include your content in a VTT, or you could separately license it for the VTT.

What mechanism would grant rights to a vtt competitor to use the content originally lisenced under OGL-1.1?

 

[kjdavies]

This may constitute a 'repudiatory breach' by WoTC. Conceivably you could sue for your losses arising from their breach, your 'expectation loss' in English law. But I think that would be a significantly tougher case to win than a case simply defending your rights under the contract. I guess some kind of group claim against WoTC by the affected 3PPs would be possible. But this is the kind of case where you really would be paying high powered lawyers a lot of money. It's the kind of thing big corporations do when they're aggressively asserting their rights. Conversely defending a claim by WoTC that they have somehow revoked your licence rights, despite no breach on your part, should be much simpler and easier I think.

Just my opinion, I am not your lawyer, no liability etc.

I can see it being difficult to sue for damages, if only because it could be difficult to define/calculate them, but it seems (I would think, and your comment seems to agree but I'm asking for confirmation) that suit to demand they continue to honor the agreement could be easier.

 

[kjdavies]

If that is the case, why use a vague term as 'de-authorize'? Why wouldn't they have used language such as: "By agreeing to this licence you also agree to use OGL 1.1 or higher for any of our products licenced with OGL 1.1."

Deauthorize isn't vague. It's an explicit reference to section 9 in OGL 1.0a. Deauthorizing 1.0a has the same effect as revoking 1.0a without needing to say revoking 1.0a.

Or at least Hasbro would be happy for us to believe so.

 

[Langy]

What mechanism would grant rights to a vtt competitor to use the content originally lisenced under OGL-1.1?

If they want 6E to not be usable by competitors, they can just release it under a different license than a version of the OGL. You can freely mix OGL 1.0a content with stuff licensed under a different license.

 

[kjdavies]

I don't quite know what they're claiming, but I can't really see anywhere that they actually declare v 1.0/1.0a to be terminated or revoked in respect of any past or present SRD.

I feel they don't, quite, but imply it. I don't have the text handy but there is language that says something pretty close to

• OGL v1.1 grants usage of SRD 5.1 as Licensed Content;
• OGL v1.0a is unauthorized (or 'now unauthorized' or 'no longer authorized');
• other SRDs previously (and future? I think it was just previously) are Unlicensed Content and need a different license from WotC to use.

I think Hasbro hasn't said OGL v1.0a has been revoked and the other SRDs are verboten... but they're happy for us to believe this means other SRDs are no longer licensed (they've never been 'licensed content', they're 'open content' under OGL v1.0a -- another license).

 

[kjdavies]

They can publish OGC under 1.0a, but they could not mix that with one D&D content that they want to keep out of the 1.0a ecosystem.

1.1 a grants (presumably) anyone permission to mix 1.0a OGC and 1.1 Lisenced Content for static purposes, as long as it is published according to 1.1. But once such a creation is made, under this scheme wizard would have exclusive permissions to use this in the digital space.

So yes, there might be a legal technicality that wizards strictly speaking cannot make such creations themselves, but that appear like a technicality that should be very easy to work around.

I don't believe they should be able to, unless they received license for the other content under v1.1. The obligations under v1.0a cannot be met under v1.1.

That is, if you wanted to take content my Draconic Bloodlines and publish for 5e under v1.1, v1.1 requires you to fail to meet your obligations under v1.0a... and without that license, you don't have permission to use my content.

 

[S'mon]

I can see it being difficult to sue for damages, if only because it could be difficult to define/calculate them, but it seems (I would think, and your comment seems to agree but I'm asking for confirmation) that suit to demand they continue to honor the agreement could be easier.

No, you can't do that. An order for specific performance is really rare. What you can do is continue to exercise your legal rights and defend a claim that you can't.

 

[kjdavies]

No, you can't do that. An order for specific performance is really rare. What you can do is continue to exercise your legal rights and defend a claim that you can't.

Which is what I'd really be looking for, I suppose, since WotC already delivered the text I'm using and I just want them to leave me alone.

 

[kjdavies]

Another interesting note:

Section 3 of OGL 1.0a sounds an awful lot like some of the language of OGL 1.1 that many were scared of.
"Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

As quoted elsewhere,

1. [1g actually] "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

"Use" doesn't mean something as simple as playing the game or whatnot, but actually copy or create derivative works.