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

[rcade]

I think it's a mistake to believe that if the OGL had included the word "irrevocable" Hasbro/WOTC would not be trying to jackhammer the foundation underneath 23 years of open gaming. If Hasbro was going to come after the OGL it would've found another dubious legal pretense on which to base its attack.

 

[FrogReaver]

Just a heads up that I've been in contact with a close friend with a major RPG kickstarter project that was planned to be released under the OGL, and is now on hold. It looks like the plan now is to release a non-OGL version not making use of any SRD material, and I've promised to help with that, and with maybe doing some monster & NPC stats for non-D&D based systems. Given that it's also a busy time of year at work, I may not be able to keep up with this thread.

casts banishment. “We will resummon you when necessary”

 

[S'mon]

I try to read only during break-time (and I think I post a lot less than others).

It's not the quantity, it's the quality!

 

[robconley]

I found the email archives of one of the two open gaming foundation mailing lists.

ogf-l

 

[Enrahim2]

(IANAL either) However, if I'm not mistaken if I want to use other open content I've licensed via OGL v1.0a (for instance, a monster from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary) I must do so under auspice of OGL v1.0a (because v1.1 can't license me to use it unless GRR licenses it themselves via v1.1), and the requirements of v1.1 require me to not comply with v1.0a.

(IANAL still) How do you read "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." (1.0a section 9)? If I make a book and want to use an imagined authorized 1.0b to distribute the monster from Advanced Bestiary as I am seemingly permited to do, which terms would I need to abide by? 1.0a, 1.0b or both? If for instance both have the same section 10 requiering a copy og the lisence; would I need to print the 1.0a one, the 1.0b one or both in the book?

My understanding is that the section 9 grant indicate that I only would need to print the 1.0b license. In other words it is the terms the book is published under that need to be upheld, not the terms of the license the author that granted me the right to copy used.

In other words, my understanding is that assuming the current leak of 1.1 get authorized, and 1.0a survives that act; I would be free to publish any monster from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary without following any of the provisions stipulated in 1.0a as long as I follow all provisions stipulated in 1.1. If this understanding is wrong, it is right that the entire logic of what I have been rambling about in this thread falls apart, and I would be really curious what the meaning of that section 9 really is.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're a transactions guy!

You're too used to building things up and thinking about how things should work. You gotta learn how to tear it down. That's where the fun is.

(Also, this is killing our hours, isn't it?)

Billable hours - that’s when you figure out how much you want to make and then bill the client for all those hours

 

[pemerton]

my understanding is that assuming the current leak of 1.1 get authorized, and 1.0a survives that act; I would be free to publish any monster from Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary without following any of the provisions stipulated in 1.0a as long as I follow all provisions stipulated in 1.1.

What (if anything) makes 1.1 a "version" of 1.0a, for the purposes of the permissions granted to various parties to the OGL 1.0a by the words of section 9 of that agreement?

I haven't seen much discussion of that issue in this thread, though I know that in one of these thread I said a little bit about it in general terms (and before the leaks).

Whatever the exact answer, I don't see any pathway to granting WotC an exclusive licence to use a contributor's OGC on a VTT. Under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a, any person could use the contributor's content of their VTT provided they in turn promised to be bound by v 1.0a.

 

[Enrahim2]

What (if anything) makes 1.1 a "version" of 1.0a, for the purposes of the permissions granted to various parties to the OGL 1.0a by the words of section 9 of that agreement?

How is 1.1 commersial's section X "This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), (..,)" not a reference to 1.0a section 9: "Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License."?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

She also worked for a time as an IP lawyer. But yes, when you are on for the EFF, you are a civil rights attorney pre-occupied with freedom of expression. There was no misstatement.

No misstatement. Your inability to acknowledge your incivility (and your continued certainty) indicates that we are good.

 

[Enrahim2]

What (if anything) makes 1.1 a "version" of 1.0a, for the purposes of the permissions granted to various parties to the OGL 1.0a by the words of section 9 of that agreement?

(IANAL) Ah, there is a important distinction: Section 9 do not grant any rights to the partisipants of the agreement. Section 9 is the publisher of the book asserting that everything they have legaly designated OGL is free to use by anyone, also parties not subject to this spesific agreement, that they can publish the material designated as OGC as long as they obey the terms of some authorised OGL.