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

[FrogReaver]

WotC fails to satisfy the bolded portion of section 2.

2. The License: This License applies to any Open Game Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Game Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License.

WotC does not post the notice that they must affix if they were using the OGL. Since section 2 is the license, they do not use the license when putting out content.

That notice is at the top of SRD 5.1 though.

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.

 

[Staffan]

That notice is at the top of SRD 5.1 though.

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.

And there's a similar notice in the legal.rtf file that's part of the 3.5e SRD files.

 

[Maxperson]

That notice is at the top of SRD 5.1 though.

Permission to copy, modify and distribute the files collectively known as the System Reference Document 5.1 (“SRD5”) is granted solely through the use of the Open Gaming License, Version 1.0a.

Correct. Granted by WotC solely through that license to other people. They are not bound by that and clearly do not follow it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Correct.

So WOTC includes the notice in the SRD 5.1, so they are abiding by section 2. Right?

I'd prefer we stick to 1 issue at a time, instead of throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

 

[mamba]

So WOTC includes the notice in the SRD 5.1, so they are abiding by section 2. Right?

pretty selective quote, did you stop after the first word because you liked it so much?

 

[gban007]

So WOTC includes the notice in the SRD 5.1, so they are abiding by section 2. Right?

I'd prefer we stick to 1 issue at a time, instead of throwing everything at the wall and hoping something sticks.

But if they aren't including the notice in the PHB, MM or DMG that have OGC in it, is it correct that then they aren't abiding by section 2?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

And there's a similar notice in the legal.rtf file that's part of the 3.5e SRD files.

The HTML distribution of the 3.5 SRD has a notice on every single file. "This material is Open Game Content, and is licensed for public use under the terms of the Open Game License v1.0a."

 

[Old Fezziwig]

But if they aren't including the notice in the PHB, MM or DMG that have OGC in it, is it correct that then they aren't abiding by section 2?

No, the material as presented in the PHB, MM, and DMG is not OGC. You can't source it from there. It can only be sourced from the SRD.

 

[pemerton]

so how do we know that there should be commas here? Keep in mind that English is my second language and the rules on that are fuzzy to me even in my first

To me the sentence without commas works just fine, obviously it also works with commas but changes the meaning somewhat. So given that there aren’t any, how do we know that ‘there should have been’?

First, I recall my lecturers teaching me that legal drafting - especially when it comes to lists - frequently omits commas that would be included in more "natural language" drafting.

Second, I look at the list, keeping in mind the overall context of the instrument, and see that it doesn't make sense unless read with those commas notionally interpolated.

It obvious that "Use" includes using OGC or copying OGC, not using or copying Derivative Material of OGC which doesn't really make sense (eg if I am the first party to take up WotC's offer to license their SRD, there is not as yet any derivative material of their OGC for me to use or copy; and even if there was, they wouldn't have the authority as per section 5 to license it, as they would not be the holders of the copyright in it; and furthermore section 9, which is clearly meant to interact with the permissions granted in section 4, refers to copying etc OGC).

Thus, the meaning of the list is to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate, and otherwise create Derivative Material of, Open Game Content (bolded commas interpolated by me).

 

[pemerton]

This is a good point. I was thinking that you had to be a part of the contract to initiate legal actions related to the contract.

As a general proposition (and not worrying about possible nuances), only a party to the contract can sue on the contract.

But making a party to the contract aware of their breach is not initiating any sort of legal action. It is just bringing about a state of affairs that then triggers certain consequences under section 13, which expressly states that termination is automatic if certain states of affairs arise.