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

[FrogReaver]

that is not how this works, WotC would need to use parts of the 3pp’s OGC to become a licensee, otherwise everyone on this planet is a licensee

That’s not what the license actually says.

One accepts the license by using OGC. Distributing OGC is ‘use’ as defined in the OGL.

Has WOTC distributed OGC? Yes! Then they are a licensee of the OGL.

 

[FrogReaver]

The offer of the license is available to everyone on the planet, but they have to accept the offer through use of the OGC (or whatever mechanism the OGL describes) to become a licensee. Until then, they're just potential licensees.

Distributing OGC is one way that the license gives for accepting. WOTC has distributed OGC, right?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Distributing OGC is one way that the license gives for accepting. WOTC has distributed OGC, right?

Yes, but distributing their own OGC does not make them a licensee. When they incorporated other folks' OGC into their work and then distributed that, they technically would've been a licensee of the third party publisher with regards to the third party OGC that they were distributing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, but distributing their own OGC does not make them a licensee. When they incorporated other folks' OGC into their work and then distributed that, they technically would've been a licensee of the third party publisher with regards to the third party OGC that they were distributing.

The license doesn’t differentiate there. It just says by using the Open Game Content you accept the terms of this License.

So the question is simple, did WOTC use the OGC? The answer is likewise simple. They did when they distributed SRD 5.1 as well as when they distributed the 3e SRD.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

The license doesn’t differentiate there. It just says by using the Open Game Content you accept the terms of this License.

So the question is simple, did WOTC use the OGC? The answer is likewise simple. They did when they distributed SRD 5.1 as well as when they distributed the 3e SRD.

Perhaps. But I'm sure you'll find someone who's willing to argue that you can't be bound by a contract that you've essentially entered into with yourself. It's not really a contract at all.

Some possible interpretations of the license text appear to lead to that having been the case with those specific examples. And while I personally don't find that line of argument very convincing, I'm no lawyer, much less a judge.

Are there jurors involved in the the common law process of contractual interpretation? I have no idea.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

The license doesn’t differentiate there. It just says by using the Open Game Content you accept the terms of this License.

So the question is simple, did WOTC use the OGC? The answer is likewise simple. They did when they distributed SRD 5.1 as well as when they distributed the 3e SRD.

But the OGL does make a distinction between contribution and use. When WotC released those SRDs, they were contributing their own copyrighted material to the OGL but weren't using OGC.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

But the OGL does make a distinction between contribution and use. When WotC released those SRDs, they were contributing their own copyrighted material to the OGL but weren't using OGC.

Use includes "licensing", however. Does contributing OGC not include licensing it for others to use?

 

[FrogReaver]

Perhaps. But I'm sure you'll find someone who's willing to argue that you can't be bound by a contract that you've essentially entered into with yourself.

I think that argument would carry weight if Wotc has only released material under the OGL and entirely stopped when others took it up. But after there were other contributors they released more OGC.

 

[mamba]

So the question is simple, did WOTC use the OGC? The answer is likewise simple. They did when they distributed SRD 5.1 as well as when they distributed the 3e SRD.

no, they did not

 

[FrogReaver]

no, they did not

I’m sorry is 5.1 SRD not OGC?