FAQ 22 was interesting.It seems fairly clear to me that, when the OGL was drafted, promulgated, and taken up by 3PPs, no one on either side of the agreement contemplated in any practical sense WotC withdrawing its offer to license. Even the stuff on the FAQ about revocation I think is more focused on WotC trying to revoke issued licences rather than WotC withdrawing its standing offer. (At least that's my recollection. I'm happy to be corrected if my recollection is false - I haven't gone back to the FAQ text to double check.)
So this FAQ makes the OGL read like a copyleft license.FAQ 22 was interesting.
22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?
Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
It is for the actual OGC part, yes. But you don't technically have to contribute to that "bucket". This guy wrote a PhD on it, and he explains it better than I could.So this FAQ makes the OGL read like a copyleft license.
What are you saying is interesting about it?FAQ 22 was interesting.
22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?
Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
I cannot speak for FrogReaver, but to me this is the part that might be interesting in terms of your approach to trying to understand what is meant by "open gaming content":What are you saying is interesting about it?
This choice of words making you a licensee rather than merely a licensor I think is the interesting detail. To me this reads as you have provided a body of your own original work to the pool of OGC, and that you indeed license the use of this work from the contributors, despite it only containing material of your own making.If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?This choice of words making you a licensee rather than merely a licensor I think is the interesting detail. To me this reads as you have provided a body of your own original work to the pool of OGC, and that you indeed license the use of this work from the contributors, despite it only containing material of your own making.
WoC isn't licensing its content to itself. It owns the copyright.Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?
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 license offer can be withdrawn.FAQ 22 was interesting.
22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?
Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.
1. Despite claims that you must publish under OGL 1.0a to become a licensee, the faq says you become a licensee upon receiving OGC.What are you saying is interesting about it?
To me it seems fairly straightforward: it's explaining how the offer and acceptance provision works. The word "receive" isn't a technical term, but I think the overall intent is clear enough. The bit about "anyone you distribute" OGC to is explaining that licensees enjoy a power to sub-license.
I don't see how this FAQ has any bearing on what happens if WotC withdraws its offer to license its OGC.
Wotc is a licensee. It says so right in the faq.WoC isn't licensing its content to itself. It owns the copyright.
According to the FAQ There’s 2 ways to become a licensee. Receive OGC. Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.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 license offer can be withdrawn.
I don’t understand the “anyone you distribute the content to” becomes a licensee statement. I’m a licensee? I’ve never distributed OGC.
TomB
A FAQ is not legally binding, and this one appears to be wrong on top of that… If you provide material under a license you are a licensor. If someone else uses that material, they are a licenseeAccording to the FAQ There’s 2 ways to become a licensee. Receive OGC. Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.
I think the faq is correct.A FAQ is not legally binding, and this one appears to be wrong on top of that… If you provide material under a license you are a licensor. If someone else uses that material, they are a licensee
It could be - but if I am right then it would take all contributors combined to withdraw the OGL 1.0a offer. No unilateral withdrawal by one of the contributors.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 license offer can be withdrawn.
Distributing content is Simply 1 path to becoming a licensee. The other is to receive OGC.I don’t understand the “anyone you distribute the content to” becomes a licensee statement. I’m a licensee? I’ve never distributed OGC.
TomB
Exactly. Though I’d add, IMO they only have to do that when using material as OGC. So the PHB doesn’t need to include the OGL or notice.Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?
‘Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.’ does not make you a licensee, it makes you a licensor. You might also be a licensee, but then that is not because of distributing OGC content.‘the contributors’ are the licensor. You can still be a licensee to ‘the contributors’
No. By using OGC you become a licensee. Distributing OGC is defined as ‘use’. Therefore distributing OGC (even your own) makes you a licensee.‘Distribute your own OGC under the OGL.’ does not make you a licensee, it makes you a licensor. You might also be a licensee, but then that is not because of distributing OGC content.
Do you agree?
According to the FAQ, yes. But not according to the text itself. Arguably, it's a gross simplification of the following interpretation (emphases mine in the following).Distributing content is Simply 1 path to becoming a licensee. The other is to receive OGC.
that flies in the face of what a licensor and what a licensee are, and why there even are two terms… to me that just means the FAQ is sloppy, not that it somehow manages to redefine the English languageNo. By using OGC you become a licensee. Distributing OGC is defined as ‘use’. Therefore distributing OGC (even your own) makes you a licensee.