An Unexpected Victory, Unconditional Surrender, and Unfinished Business.

[Matt Thomason]

Using their material, since it uses all the terms of OGL 1.0a is a license between the 3PP creator and someone who wants to use their work. By agreeing to 1.0a, they have agreed that their work is forever usable by others via section 4 of the OGL. That doesn't go away if 1.0a goes away. Only WotC and it's agents can deauthorize or create a new OGL.

Forever usable by others via the OGL. You have to accept the OGL and follow its terms in order for that contract to be formed. If for some reason you find yourself unable to legally place the OGL in your book, you can no longer use it to reuse things licensed out under it, because you will no longer have a license to use that content. Not having a license to use it means your use of it will now be a copyright violation.

The only thing giving you permission to use the content is a contract between you and the creator, called OGL 1.0(a) (unless the creator did something silly with their Open Game Content declaration and gave you permission there)

The OGL is not a grant of permission. It's an offer to enter into a contract under the exact terms listed in the license.

 

[Cadence]

You aren't understanding. The license in the 3PP is a license. It is not OGL 1.0a, but uses the same terms as OGL 1.0a, so that 3PP creator is bound by section 4.

"4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-‐‑free, non-‐exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content."

They have all provides licenses to allow others perpetual, worldwide, royalty free, non-exclusive licenses with regard to any OGC in their product. That's a term that they agree to in their license.

I would fully believe I haven't understood what you are trying to say.

Using their material, since it uses all the terms of OGL 1.0a is a license between the 3PP creator and someone who wants to use their work. By agreeing to 1.0a, they have agreed that their work is forever usable by others via section 4 of the OGL. That doesn't go away if 1.0a goes away. Only WotC and it's agents can deauthorize or create a new OGL.

Sure, the 3PP creator can use whatever license (call it LicZ) they want on their own things that did not require someone elses 1.0a materials.

It sounded like you were saying that the 3PP creator could give rights to the material they had used from others 1.0a things under their LicZ.

 

[Maxperson]

It doesn't have to me mine - in fact it can't, because I don't actually own the copyright to any published content I've written, it's the property of whichever publisher paid me.

If you can dig up a copy of The Athena Strain for the B5 RPG, that's by me but owned by Mongoose Publishing. Ditto for about 50 magazine articles over the years, and a couple of 20-year old 3PP books where the publisher is no longer around to sell it any more. But you don't need a copy of any of those, because they all use OGL 1.0(a) of which the full text is available in many places.
So, go grab a copy of OGL 1.0(a), pretend you have a copy of a book with my name on it and that license in it, and the following Open Game Content declaration:

"All mechanics in this book are declared as Open Game Content under the terms OGL 1.0(a)"

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-‐‑free, non-‐exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

The last sentence in your post grants anyone who comes along the right to use the OGC in it as it uses the TERMS of OGL 1.0a, but is not itself 1.0a. If OGL 1.0a goes away, people can still use the OGC(but not the PI) of that book as the publisher granted the perpetual right to do so.

 

[Maxperson]

It sounded like you were saying that the 3PP creator could give rights to the material they had used from others 1.0a things under their LicZ.

No, I wasn't saying that. You can only grant rights to your own things. I was saying everyone, because everyone was required to grant authorization to perpetual open use of their own stuff under the OGL 1.0a. So 3PP #1 gave us all permission to use his OGC, 3PP #2 gave us all permission to use his OGC, 3PP #3 gave us all permission to use his OGC 3PP #4 gave us all permission to use his OGC, and so on. Each only gives us permission to his own material, but we all still have access to all 5e 3PP due to the requirements they had to follow to produce in the first place.

 

[Cadence]

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-‐‑free, non-‐exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

The last sentence in your post grants anyone who comes along the right to use the OGC in it as it uses the TERMS of OGL 1.0a, but is not itself 1.0a. If OGL 1.0a goes away, people can still use the OGC(but not the PI) of that book as the publisher granted the perpetual right to do so.

Right. They can give away their new creations in more ways than just the OGL 1.0a, as long as they are not using someone else's material that is bound by another license that prevents it.

Someone making a PF 1e adaptation that relies on Paizo's 1.0a material that uses WotC's 1.0a material in the 3.5 SRD can't slap that verbiage in willy nilly to get around needing to follow 1.0a.

 

[Cadence]

No, I wasn't saying that. You can only grant rights to your own things. I was saying everyone, because everyone was required to grant authorization to perpetual open use of their own stuff under the OGL 1.0a. So 3PP #1 gave us all permission to use his OGC, 3PP #2 gave us all permission to use his OGC, 3PP #3 gave us all permission to use his OGC 3PP #4 gave us all permission to use his OGC, and so on. Each only gives us permission to his own material, but we all still have access to all 5e 3PP due to the requirements they had to follow to produce in the first place.

It sounds like you're saying that all 5e 3PP folks who were using the OGL 1.0a (perhaps un-knowingly) also gave permission to use their OGC without needing to use OGL 1.0a.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. They can give away their new creations in more ways than just the OGL 1.0a, as long as they are not using someone else's material that is bound by another license that prevents it.

Even if that person is using someone else's material, that original person has already given permission to everyone to use that OGC material.

A creates a 3PP using OGL 1.0a and grants everyone permission to use his OGC. B comes along and decides to make a product that is derivative of that product and adds some new OGC. C then comes along and wants to do the same to B's product. He can do so because there is nothing in B's OGC that C cannot use, because A gave C permission to use his OGC and so did B.

Someone making a PF 1e adaptation that relies on Paizo's 1.0a material that uses WotC's 1.0a material in the 3.5 SRD can't slap that verbiage in willy nilly to get around needing to follow 1.0a.

I've been saying 5e 3PP for a reason. Older material uses older SRDs and doesn't work the same way.

 

[Matt Thomason]

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-‐‑free, non-‐exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

The last sentence in your post grants anyone who comes along the right to use the OGC in it as it uses the TERMS of OGL 1.0a, but is not itself 1.0a. If OGL 1.0a goes away, people can still use the OGC(but not the PI) of that book as the publisher granted the perpetual right to do so.

Well, I can see where you're misreading, at least.
Thats one clause in the license. As that is a legal document and not simply stray paragraphs, It cannot be read in isolation, it only applies if you follow every term in that license. You can't snip out the grant by itself and pretend the obligations listed in that license don't exist. Even if you do, your own highlighted text says

"with the exact terms of this License" - you need to read and follow those terms for any of the license text to be valid. Otherwise you're in breach of contract, as well as violation of copyright.

Now we get to this bit:

13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

If you are for any reason unable to follow those terms, and do not fix it within 30 days, the license terminates, and you no longer have that perpetual, etc, license you were granted in 4.

 

[Cadence]

Even if that person is using someone else's material, that original person has already given permission to everyone to use that OGC material.

A creates a 3PP using OGL 1.0a and grants everyone permission to use his OGC. B comes along and decides to make a product that is derivative of that product and adds some new OGC. C then comes along and wants to do the same to B's product. He can do so because there is nothing in B's OGC that C cannot use, because A gave C permission to use his OGC and so did B.

I've been saying 5e 3PP for a reason. Older material uses older SRDs and doesn't work the same way.

It sounded like you were saying B and C didn't need to replicate the 1.0a license in the back of their material.

 

[Maxperson]

It sounds like you're saying that all 5e 3PP folks who were using the OGL 1.0a (perhaps un-knowingly) also gave permission to use their OGC without needing to use OGL 1.0a.

They all did. Permission for others to use their OCS is part of the terms they agreed to and are posting in their products(assuming they are following 1.0a properly). If they didn't know then they didn't read OGL 1.0a very well.

 

[Cadence]

They all did. Permission for others to use their OCS is part of the terms they agreed to and are posting in their products(assuming they are following 1.0a properly). If they didn't know then they didn't read OGL 1.0a very well.

Permission for others to use it if those others are using 1.0a too, right?

 

[Maxperson]

Well, I can see where you're misreading, at least.
Thats one clause in the license. As that is a legal document and not simply stray paragraphs, It cannot be read in isolation, it only applies if you follow every term in that license. You can't snip out the grant by itself and pretend the obligations listed in that license don't exist. Even if you do, your own highlighted text says

"with the exact terms of this License" - you need to read and follow those terms for any of the license text to be valid. Otherwise you're in breach of contract, as well as violation of copyright.

Now we get to this bit:


If you are for any reason unable to follow those terms, and do not fix it within 30 days, the license terminates, and you no longer have that perpetual, etc, license you were granted in 4.

What term can you not follow? The part you quoted specifically says that the sublicences(those licenses in the 3PP) continue on.

 

[Matt Thomason]

What term can you not follow? The part you quoted specifically says that the sublicences(those licenses in the 3PP) continue on.

What you have is a license. Which terminates under clause 13.
Sublicenses are licenses that are created from your license - people using your Open Game Content.

This means if you violate the terms of the license and your license terminates, other licenses that other people have that were dependent on your license do not.

 

[Cadence]

What term can you not follow? The part you quoted specifically says that the sublicences(those licenses in the 3PP) continue on.

Sublicenses that say they need to use 1.0a, right?

 

[Maxperson]

Permission for others to use it if those others are using 1.0a too, right?

The sublicense says they need to follow the terms of OGL 1.0a, not use OGL 1.0a.

What you have is a license. Which terminates under clause 13.
Sublicenses are licenses that are created from your license - people using your Open Game Content.

This means if you violate the terms of the license and your license terminates, other licenses that other people have that were dependent on your license do not.

Okay. What term has the author violated that causes the termination of his license? Which by the way the author has 30 days to cure and continue using the license he has been granted.

 

[Cadence]

The sublicense says they need to follow the terms of OGL 1.0a, not use OGL 1.0a.

"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."

"10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute"

It feels like your interpretation is absolutely bonker balls. But IANAL. @pemerton @S'mon @Snarf Zagyg ?

::::

 

[Matt Thomason]

The sublicense says they need to follow the terms of OGL 1.0a, not use OGL 1.0a.

Okay. What term has the author violated that causes the termination of his license? Which by the way the author has 30 days to cure and continue using the license he has been granted.

The violation would be not including the OGL 1.0a license itself in their work, attributing all the works listed in the S15s of the works they used.

 

[Maxperson]

"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."

"10. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Game Content You Distribute"

It feels like your interpretation is absolutely bonker balls. But IANAL. @pemerton @S'mon @Snarf Zagyg ?

When the 3PP creator produced his product, a contract was formed between WotC and the 3PP. WotC can't unilaterally change the contract. The terms are set when both sides have agreed to the contract and performed what they need to perform. Deauthorizing 1.0a later applies to future products, not the ones already produced. If I were to use the Runeblades supplement's OGC for something I want to create, I would need to follow the terms of OGL 1.0a, which includes putting a copy of that license in my product.

 

[Maxperson]

The violation would be not including the OGL 1.0a license itself in their work, attributing all the works listed in the S15s of the works they used.

I don't understand what you are saying here. If they followed OGL 1.0a properly, then the copy of the license is in there already so there is no violation, and I'm not sure what you are arguing about section 15.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I don't understand what you are saying here. If they followed OGL 1.0a properly, then the copy of the license is in there already so there is no violation, and I'm not sure what you are arguing about section 15.

You were the one that said 5.1 under CC means you no longer need the OGL for reusing OGC from derivative material (the 3PP works licensed under the OGL)