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

[FrogReaver]

WoC isn't licensing its content to itself. It owns the copyright.

Wotc is a licensee. It says so right in the faq.

 

[FrogReaver]

I find the last sentence problematic for licensees: That last sentence seems to imply that the particular license for a new product doesn’t exist until the product is distributed. Implying that the license offer can be withdrawn while the product is being created. That is, assuming that the license offer can be withdrawn.

I don’t understand the “anyone you distribute the content to” becomes a licensee statement. I’m a licensee? I’ve never distributed OGC.

TomB

According to the FAQ There’s 2 ways to become a licensee. Receive OGC. Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.

 

[mamba]

According to the FAQ There’s 2 ways to become a licensee. Receive OGC. Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.

A FAQ is not legally binding, and this one appears to be wrong on top of that… If you provide material under a license you are a licensor. If someone else uses that material, they are a licensee

 

[FrogReaver]

A FAQ is not legally binding, and this one appears to be wrong on top of that… If you provide material under a license you are a licensor. If someone else uses that material, they are a licensee

I think the faq is correct.

‘the contributors’ are the licensor. You can still be a licensee to ‘the contributors’

 

[FrogReaver]

I find the last sentence problematic for licensees: That last sentence seems to imply that the particular license for a new product doesn’t exist until the product is distributed. Implying that the license offer can be withdrawn while the product is being created. That is, assuming that the license offer can be withdrawn.

It could be - but if I am right then it would take all contributors combined to withdraw the OGL 1.0a offer. No unilateral withdrawal by one of the contributors.

I don’t understand the “anyone you distribute the content to” becomes a licensee statement. I’m a licensee? I’ve never distributed OGC.

TomB

Distributing content is Simply 1 path to becoming a licensee. The other is to receive OGC.

 

[FrogReaver]

Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?

Exactly. Though I’d add, IMO they only have to do that when using material as OGC. So the PHB doesn’t need to include the OGL or notice.

 

[mamba]

‘the contributors’ are the licensor. You can still be a licensee to ‘the contributors’

‘Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.’ does not make you a licensee, it makes you a licensor. You might also be a licensee, but then that is not because of distributing OGC content.

Do you agree?

 

[FrogReaver]

‘Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.’ does not make you a licensee, it makes you a licensor. You might also be a licensee, but then that is not because of distributing OGC content.

Do you agree?

No. By using OGC you become a licensee. Distributing OGC is defined as ‘use’. Therefore distributing OGC (even your own) makes you a licensee.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Distributing content is Simply 1 path to becoming a licensee. The other is to receive OGC.

According to the FAQ, yes. But not according to the text itself. Arguably, it's a gross simplification of the following interpretation (emphases mine in the following).

From section 3: "Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

"Using" is defined as to "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content."

"Distribute" is defined as "to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute".

Indeed, having "Used" OGC like this by licensing it, WotC "must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that [they] Use". If they don't, they're in breach. But sublicenses survive terminations for breach. So there's no "putting the genie back in the bottle" if it's already out there.

There is then a case that WotC, having licensed OGC according to the license, has accepted the terms and is thus contractually bound to continue doing so. Like Bob Tarantino writes, "open content must remain open for all future users."

@pemerton might disagree, but I hope he'll tell us why! I suspect this somewhat circular reasoning is unappealing for some reason.

 

[mamba]

No. By using OGC you become a licensee. Distributing OGC is defined as ‘use’. Therefore distributing OGC (even your own) makes you a licensee.

that flies in the face of what a licensor and what a licensee are, and why there even are two terms… to me that just means the FAQ is sloppy, not that it somehow manages to redefine the English language