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

[FrogReaver]

Does it matter? It directly refutes your assertions that WotC has to license to itself through the OGL 1.0a when it uses the content that it owns.

No it doesn’t refute this claim. My claim is not that they are licensing themselves content. It’s that they are licensing all OGC when they define content they own as OGC and use that content with the attached notice and OGL license. (Distributing is included in ‘use’)

 

[FrogReaver]

Ok, one more time.

It is not possible for WotC to make a license with itself. Or, rather, any license that it did make with itself is 100% unenforceable.

Put it another way. Suppose WotC printed a book with an OGL that was 100% in violation of the terms of the OGL. They use all sorts of WotC IP in the book as well as making multiple mistakes in their OGL declaration.

So what? Who is going to sue them? You? Me? No one can enforce an agreement that WotC is making with itself. All this circular logic about WotC being a licensee is ludicrous. They are the LICENSOR. You cannot be both. The OGL is not a licensor. It is a license. It is an agreement between WotC and whoever ends up down the chain of OGL declarations. It is never an agreement with itself. The SRD is not derivative of anything. It is what all OGC is derived FROM.

But, yes, it is impossible for "you" to include WotC.

It’s not because the contributors of OGC is a reference to all contributors. By using OGC as use is defined in the OGL, WOTC becomes a licensee to all ‘the contributors’ of OGC. Using OGC is how that offer is accepted.

Your bringing assumptions into my position that don’t actually exist in it.

 

[Maxperson]

None of that answers the question I asked. Like not even remotely.

You've been claiming that WotC becomes a licensee through the OGL when it uses anything in the SRD. What that post said directly refutes that. It is not licensing content to itself when it uses the property that it owns, which includes the SRD.

 

[FrogReaver]

You've been claiming that WotC becomes a licensee through the OGL when it uses anything in the SRD. What that post said directly refutes that. It is not licensing content to itself when it uses the property that it owns, which includes the SRD.

No it doesn’t. It’s not referring to the same argument I am making. Please try to understand my words. If you don’t understand please ask.

 

[Maxperson]

No it doesn’t refute this claim. My claim is not that they are licensing themselves content. It’s that they are licensing all OGC when they define content they own as OGC and use that content with the attached notice and OGL license. (Distributing is included in ‘use’)

Okay, but when have they ever used the content with the attached notice or OGL license. Simple distribution doesn't do it. They own it and can distribute it outside of the license they created for everyone else.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Okay, but when have they ever used the content with the attached notice or OGL license. Simple distribution doesn't do it.

They've certainly distributed some SRDs with that notice and with that license. They could cease to do so at any time though.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay, but when have they ever used the content with the attached notice or OGL license. Simple distribution doesn't do it. They own it and can distribute it outside of the license they created for everyone else.

Yes. Simple distribution of OGC with attached notice of what is OGC and accompanying OGL is defined in the OGL as ‘use’ and acceptance of the contributors offer is done via ‘use’.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes. Simple distribution of OGC with attached notice of what is OGC and accompanying OGL is defined in the OGL as ‘use’ and acceptance of the contributors offer is done via ‘use’.

If you've been paying attention to all of the attorneys in these threads, then you will have seen that when figuring out what a contract means, they look at that content to find the intent. It's clear between the definitions, the opening paragraphs, and the language used in the OGL itself that the license was intended for you and me, not them. They are not bound by a term that the license makes clear through the language used all throughout it, is for others. The whole thing is written for YOU.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you've been paying attention to all of the attorneys in these threads, then you will have seen that when figuring out what a contract means, they look at that content to find the intent. It's clear between the definitions, the opening paragraphs, and the language used in the OGL itself that the license was intended for you and me, not them. They are not bound by a term that the license makes clear through the language used all throughout it, is for others. The whole thing is written for YOU.

Before claiming the attorneys and law professors agree with you, maybe you should actually let them reply to my argument. This is the first time I’ve seen anything resembling it made in these threads.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

If you've been paying attention to all of the attorneys in these threads, then you will have seen that when figuring out what a contract means, they look at that content to find the intent. It's clear between the definitions, the opening paragraphs, and the language used in the OGL itself that the license was intended for you and me, not them. They are not bound by a term that the license makes clear through the language used all throughout it, is for others. The whole thing is written for YOU.

I, too, would be skeptical of an interpretation that would preclude an original contributor of OGC from distributing or licensing that material in any other way than under the terms of the license. WotC have certainly done so unopposed in the past. And so, I think, have other contributors of completely original OGC (other original games released under the license).