Search results

There’s too much here for me to respond to it in detail. Re: “accept” vs “agree”, yes, I used the wrong word. But, that doesn’t take away my question: How to fit “Contributors grant” to “sub-license”. That’s the key question, which has still not been addressed. Re: “consequence”. You have...

Sure, I’ll go with this. Anyways, it’s largely besides the point. My core question was about how section 4 works and how understand how the ”Contributors grant” text fits with the “sub-licenses” text that appears elsewhere. Despite my failure to detail the section 4 mechanism, I’m still left...

Yes. But, the SRD did not become OGC as a part of WotC accepting a license agreement. The SRD became open content by WotC presenting it as OGC. I‘m thinking I’m being too loose: Typically, content becomes a part of OGC be being marked as such as a part of using other OGC, using the OGL. I...

Then, B accepting the OGL[WXA] means B accepting the offer of OGL[WXA]. Here, I presume that the license which is created by section 4, which copies all of the terms of the OGL, is not just a license but is also a license agreement which A must offer. As a consequence of accepting this offer...

Except, how does the SRD become OGC? W (meaning, WotC) does not use any license agreement to make the SRD open content. The discussion (this thread) previously established Contributors are publishers of OGC, that WotC is a contributor (otherwise, how does the SRD become material for section...

Is this a proper description of your example? (I'm finding two paths by which B obtains licenses. I think both paths are possible, but I'm not sure. I'm not sure they are meaningfully different, although, my hunch is that the existence of the second path is very important.) --- W owns X A...

I understand all of that. How do you conform that to the explicit text: “The Contributors grant you”? Bold added by me. The use of “sub-license” seems to be in conflict with the bolded text. (A casual read of Section 4 is that the Contributors are granting a license, as a consequence of...

The presumption is necessary to ask the question that follows. I’m asking to learn what is the character of the licenses which are formed by copying the terms of the head license. Do these conform to the definition of sub-licenses? Does calling them sub-licenses actually make them...

Right. Ignore all of that. Presume that the usage of the term “sub-license” in the OGL is erroneous. Consider the licenses which are created by copying the terms of the OGL. Would those normally be considered sub-licenses? TomB

I’m still confused by “sub-license”. Presumably, “sub” is at least descriptive, regardless of the specific legal meaning. To my layman’s view: The OGL 1.0a is both an agreement to offer a license, a mechanism to grant licenses, and, by that mechanism, which is to copy the terms of the OGL, an...

A question: Is WotC a Contributor? I’ve been taking been taking this as a given, but I can’t find a clear statement anywhere that they have “Contributed” OGC. They have made the SRD available as OGC but not by “contributing“ it through The OGL. They did so under the original “top level” OGL...

Ah. Ok, I think my problem was that I was missing the "at time zero": Bold added by me. More precisely then, each Contributor agrees at time zero (when they accepted the license) that they will -- in the future and to currently unknown parties -- grant a license to their contributed content...

I was responding to this: Isn't the grant of a license a private law agreement? TomB

Additional text omitted. But doesn't section 4 do exactly that? If not as a pool, at least individually? Doesn't each Contributor implicitly agree to, at future point in time, to an as of yet unknown new User, to grant them a license? TomB

The word “Use” (of OGC) is being used (by some) in the sense of being sufficient for the OGL (taken as a contract which, when accepted issues a license) to be accepted and a license issued. Section 2 specifies a condition which is a requirement of the agreement. I take that to mean that even...

Trying to find a spot for this reply. From this: As there are conditions - section 2, at least - section 3 would seem to require those conditions in addition to ”Use” (as defined in section 1g) before a license is given (granted?) I presume, legally, this goes without saying, hence the very...

I find the last sentence problematic for licensees: That last sentence seems to imply that the particular license for a new product doesn’t exist until the product is distributed. Implying that the license offer can be withdrawn while the product is being created. That is, assuming that the...

It just seems an oddly ambiguous thing to put in a contract. Absent a specific action, knowing intent is mind reading. This is important in writing and in implementing software, which is my background, as computers cannot read the user's mind to know their intent. A computer must rely on a...

Additional text omitted. "Any" open content seems to make section 2 apply to specific Open Game Content which is present in a new product. Section 2 seems to be how new content becomes Open Game Content. "The" Open Game Content, from section 3, parses badly. Use can be thought of as...

In the realm of animations, what counts? There is a fuzzy line here: * Folks have been drawing spell areas of effect for decades. * Certain progressive effects have been drawn for decades. A spell effect that creeps along might be drawn progressively. That's a very crude animation, but...