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

[FrogReaver]

The third point in my post here is erroneous.

I don’t see how

 

[Old Fezziwig]

This could still mean that I'm allowed to license my Derivative Material of their Open Game Content to anyone else though. And as I've understood it, Derivative Material does include verbatim copies of their Open Game Content.

I've been re-reading 1(b), and I can't help but think that, despite the fact that we can read the license to get where you're going, that it's not intended to be read this way. The entire list suggests that the intention was to deal with changing existing works in the definition and not to suggest that all OGC was Derivative Materials. I'm not entirely sure that the ambiguity in drafting is significant enough to be read against WotC, but I guess it could be. At least it's not something I would want to test myself.

There's also part of me that finds myself reading the clause as if the list is offset as I'm showing below. I don't know how convincing I find it, as it's still awkward, but the awkward drafting's in line with some things that I've seen at my day job lately.

"Derivative Material" means copyrighted material [comma] including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form [comma] in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted

Edited for clarity and to add in a missing word. Edit in Italics.

 

[mamba]

This could still mean that I'm allowed to license my Derivative Material of their Open Game Content to anyone else though. And as I've understood it, Derivative Material does include verbatim copies of their Open Game Content.

You are definitely allowed to license your Derivative Material as OGC. It can even include parts WotC's OGC verbatim. The question eventually becomes 'are you still allowed to do so when WotC deauthorizes the OGL 1.0a' and the answer to that is 'no'. The question whether WotC can actually deauthorized it is probably also 'no', but from the looks of it, they want to find out in court

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, I cannot help you there then, I did that two posts up and apparently failed

Let's turn this around, what is WotC's Open Game Content a derivative of?

Nothing. Why does it need to be derivative of anything?

 

[Old Fezziwig]

And I just realized, I misread your posts, @Aspirinsmurf. My apologies. I'll leave my natterings up, but I was in the wrong part of the OGL.

 

[mamba]

Nothing. Why does it need to be derivative of anything?

we just went through this... if it is not derivative material, then WotC is not using the OGC. See

"(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content"

 

[FrogReaver]

we just went through this... if it is not derivative material, then WotC is not using the OGC. See

"(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content"

Otherwise creating derivative material is but one way of using OGC. Distributing OGC is not creating derivative material but is using it (by the definition of the license).

*I see how you are trying to read that sentence but that’s not the way to read it.

 

[Maxperson]

2. The FAQ also claims that distributing under the OGL 1.0a (even for works wholly your own) makes you a licensee - implication being that WOTC is also a licensee to the OGL 1.0a.

Here's an analogy that might make it easier to understand.

Suppose I have a large supply of chocolate brownies. I got to a public space and put the brownies out and tell people, "Feel free to take these brownies. You can repurpose them by changing their shape, or even for use in making deserts that are all your own. You can't use walnuts in them, though, because that's not part of this. If you choose to take and distribute the brownie in any form, you agree to pay me $1."

Anyone who takes a brownie for use that I approved of there will have to pay me a $1, but if I walk up to those brownies, hopefully it's clear that I don't owe myself $1. They're my brownies.

WotC doesn't use the license to put out the things that it owns. Only others do that.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Otherwise creating derivative material is but one way of using OGC. Distributing OGC is not creating derivative material but is using it (by the definition of the license).

*I see how you are trying to read that sentence but that’s not the way to read it.

It's pretty clear that they can unilaterally cease to distribute (small D) their OGC though.

 

[mamba]

Otherwise creating derivative material is but one way of using OGC.

So what sentence are you referring to then?

Distributing OGC is not creating derivative material but is using it (by the definition of the license).

*I see how you are trying to read that sentence but that’s not the way to read it.

This is the only proper way to read this sentence Explain to me either which other sentence you are basing your 'WotC uses OGC' on, or explain to me what the 'of' is doing there in 'Derivative Material of Open Game Content' (you seem to treat it like an 'or', which it is not)