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

[pemerton]

Hell, I don't have the expertise to make that sort of judgement and I'm a paralegal who has a greater understanding of the law than the average person.

If your paralegal work encompasses dealing with contract-making and similar sorts of agreements, then I'd imagine that most of what I'm saying at least makes sense, whether or not you feel competent to judge if I'm right or wrong.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

Hopefully I can summarize.

WotC publishes the D&D SRD, and offers to license the work to anyone out there under the OGL. Alice publishes her own game based on the D&D SRD, Elves and Elementals. By doing so, she accepts WotC's offer, and this forms a contract between WotC and Alice, where WotC is the licensor and Alice is the licensee.

Evil Hat publishes the Fate SRD and also offers that work under the OGL. Bob publishes his own game based on the Fate SRD. By doing so, he accepts Evil Hat's offer, and forms a contract between Evil Hat and Bob, were Evil Hat is the licensor and Bob is the licensee.

At no point did WotC become a licensee of Evil Hat's Fate SRD. The WotC/Alice contract and the Evil Hat/Bob contract are independent, even though both the D&D SRD and the Fate SRD are both licensed as OGC under the OGL. WotC would have to do something (e.g. republish) the Fate SRD to accept Evil Hat's offer.

In order to comply with the OGL, Alice and Bob must each offer their own OGC under the OGL for use by other people to use. Just as WotC is not a licensee of the Fate SRD, WotC is similarly not a licensee of Alice's or Bob's OGC unless Wotc does something (e.g. republish) that would constitute accepting the offers from Alice or Bob. There is no automatic pooling of all OGC making everyone a licensee of everyone else.

(edits for clarity)

 

[FrogReaver]

What does this mean? You clearly don't grasp the difference between an offer, and a contract that results from an offer being accepted.

You keep saying this and yet it's 100% untrue. Like you imagine positions to beat down and assign them to me even though I don't actually take them.

I'm sure there's enough positions I legitimately take that you can beat down that you don't need to assign ones to me that I don't hold.

You can't explain what consideration is,

Yes I can. Though probably not as fully as you.

or how the OGL establishes a contract by having consideration flow in both directions.

Explaining the consideration flowing both ways I'm not as sure on, maybe I could explain that.

You can't articulate the difference between the contract and the licence that it establishes,

I'm even less confident here, but I think I might could - again not as well as you or another legal professional.

and the way different parties might be involved in these various legal states of affairs.

This seems very broad and so I'm not entirely sure what you mean here.

The purpose of this thread was to support informed discussion of the OGL. I don't agree with everything the OP has posted, but all @DavyGreenwind's posts are clearly expressed, using orthodox legal reasoning. They all make sense.

We are 126 pages into the discussion and only 5 or so of us are currently posting. I think the original intent of the OP has sailed at this point.

 

[Maxperson]

Why does it need to be a book?

Because putting it in a book would show that they are putting out that work through the license. The license would apply to WotC.

There are two exceptions from prior editions(I THINK both are from 3e) that I've heard about where WotC put the notice into a book. The 3e Unearthed Arcana is the one that I looked at. The existence of these two exceptions very strongly implies that the OGL 1.0a doesn't generally apply to WotC. WotC probably used material in those books that someone else created.

If you were correct that WotC was bound by their own license, the required notice would have been in every 3e, 4e and 5e book that they made.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't understand what you think you are contributing by essentially making stuff up that bears little connection to actual modes of legal analysis and legal reasoning in the private law of the US and other common law jurisdictions.

Ah. That's just the way I talk. I believe that if someone disagrees with my assertions, they will tell me why. I'm not nearly as certain as I sound. I do find the best feedback comes when I'm not wishy washy in my posts about a position I want to explore. I am open to having my mind changed.

One thing that would move the needle for me on my most recent assertion would be to show other sublicense contracts that the thing being licensed is done so by the owner and yet it's clearly shown to be considered a sublicense agreement.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you were correct that WotC was bound by their own license, the required notice would have been in every 3e, 4e and 5e book that they made.

Even @pemerton didn't agree with this.

 

[Maxperson]

If your paralegal work encompasses dealing with contract-making and similar sorts of agreements, then I'd imagine that most of what I'm saying at least makes sense, whether or not you feel competent to judge if I'm right or wrong.

It doesn't. Most of this I'm just sort of remembering from school. I've worked in personal injury and employment(wage and hour). At the employment firms I worked at I only saw a few employment contracts, because they were primarily wage and hour firms.

 

[pemerton]

It doesn't. Most of this I'm just sort of remembering from school. I've worked in personal injury and employment(wage and hour). At the employment firms I worked at I only saw a few employment contracts, because they were primarily wage and hour firms.

I don't know about employment stuff - especially in the US, which is pretty different from Australia in its employment law.

In personal injury, I'd expect the facts to be nearly everything, rather than these more technical questions about interpretation of contractual terms.

 

[FrogReaver]

Hopefully I can summarize.

WotC publishes the D&D SRD, and offers to license the work to anyone out there under the OGL. Alice publishes her own game based on the D&D SRD, Elves and Elementals. By doing so, she accepts WotC's offer, and this forms a contract between WotC and Alice, where WotC is the licensor and Alice is the licensee.

Evil Hat publishes the Fate SRD and also offers that work under the OGL. Bob publishes his own game based on the Fate SRD. By doing so, he accepts Evil Hat's offer, and forms a contract between Evil Hat and Bob, were Evil Hat is the licensor and Bob is the licensee.

At no point did WotC become a licensee of Evil Hat's Fate SRD. The WotC/Alice contract and the Evil Hat/Bob contract are independent, even though both the D&D SRD and the Fate SRD are both licensed as OGC under the OGL. WotC would have to do something (e.g. republish) the Fate SRD to accept Evil Hat's offer.

In order to comply with the OGL, Alice and Bob must each offer their own OGC under the OGL for use by other people to use. Just as WotC is not a licensee of the Fate SRD, WotC is similarly not a licensee of Alice's or Bob's OGC unless Wotc does something (e.g. republish) that would constitute accepting the offers from Alice or Bob. There is no automatic pooling of all OGC making everyone a licensee of everyone else.

(edits for clarity)

For the record I understand the position. I can understand it and not agree with it.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

For the record I understand the position. I can understand it and not agree with it.

Given that a lawyer is telling you this is the correct interpretation of the situation, why do you keep pushing back against it?