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

[Jack Daniel]

And while we're talking about potential grammar minutiae, consider also that the words "System Reference Document" and the abbreviation "SRD" are always used in the singular as well. There have been several SRDs, and the one that 1.1 is referencing is always stated to be the most-recent one (I believe 5.1 is the most recent, right?).

And in addition to that, something called the "System Reverence Document (draft version)" that has a copyright of 1999, 2000 has also had all it's Open Game Content released by a 3rd party publisher and appeared in Section 15's released under the OGL 1.0 license. That is again technically not the same as a "System Reference Document" as used in the 1.1 language.

There is much lack of specificity.

joe b.

That seems to be covered under the definitions of Licensed and Unlicensed Content. They're trying to kill off the concept of Open Game Content and instead say that the 5.1 SRD is Licensed Content, and anything else that has been released as official D&D anything by WotC or a predecessor or successor (so that includes TSR) is now Unlicensed Content. The old SRDs would fall under the Unlicensed umbrella if this theory were to pan out.

Of course it all still hinges on the circular logic of their being able to unilaterally deauthorize 1.0(a) under its own section 9 by updating 1.0(a) via section 9 which they claim to have just deauthorized…

 

[kjdavies]

Nope. The full OGL, with the sources in Section 15, is right there on page 222. I'm looking at it right now. And Page 2 includes the requisite specification of Product Identity.

The only thing I'm seeing that might be a violation of the OGL is that the title page lists the resources used for this product, including the third-party books credited in Section 15 of the OGL—and if those titles are product identity, which they presumably are, then mentioning them outside Section 15 seems to be forbidden by Section 7 of the OGL unless they had permission from the owners, though for all I know they did have permission. Aside from that, I'm not finding anything here that seems to be wrong with the way they used Open Game Content, though there may be something subtle I'm missing.

(It's also entirely possible there's a different book in which WotC used a third oarty's Open Game Content and forgot to include the OGL, but if so I'm not aware of it.)

The OGL on page 222 of my copy of Monster Manual 2 has only the OGL itself in the Section 15. It doesn't include Monster Manual 2 or Creature Collection (but when I look at Creature Collection their Section 15 has only the OGL -- there's a note on the title page with the copyright notice to put in Section 15 if content is used, but they did not put it in their own Section 15).

 

[kjdavies]

I present to you commercial term IX J : "You will not try to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way, (...)"

Applies only if you accept the agreement. If you don't accept the agreement, you don't accept that you will try to avoid the agreement. You've already dodged it entirely.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Any lawyer who want to weigh in on the legality of that term? I feel like if "No shenanigans" was valid in contracts, every contract would have it and since they don't it's not.

shrug It's just a written version of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. There is always the background of "no shenanigans" in contract law- it's just hard to enforce.

Pretty meaningless as a written term, usually, unless there is something more specific than that.

 

[kjdavies]

And while we're talking about potential grammar minutiae, consider also that the words "System Reference Document" and the abbreviation "SRD" are always used in the singular as well. There have been several SRDs, and the one that 1.1 is referencing is always stated to be the most-recent one (I believe 5.1 is the most recent, right?).

And in addition to that, something called the "System Reverence Document (draft version)" that has a copyright of 1999, 2000 that was also released with Open Game Content and referenced by a 3rd party publisher and appeared in Section 15's released under the OGL 1.0 license. That is again technically not the same as a "System Reference Document" as used in the 1.1 language.

There is much lack of specificity.

joe b.

Indeed, I'm reading this as

• OGL v1.1 applies to SRD 5.1
• OGL v1.0a no longer applies to SRD 5.1 (it does today, so they need to unauthorize v1.0a so it no longer applies)
• OGL v1.1 does not apply to other SRDs, they must be licensed separately
• OGL v1.0a is a separate license that applies to the other SRDs (hasn't been revoked).

The sloppiness of the language (not being clear about SRD = SRD 5.1 being a big one, and specifying the scope of 'unauthorization') leaves ambiguities that have led to this whole mess.

 

[Amrûnril]

Read the first sentence: "you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023.” Now read the last sentence: “If you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023, your only option is to agree.”

Creating content and publishing content are not the same thing. The way this statement is phrased, WOTC has left it very unclear whether game studios can continue to publish works made under OGL 1.0. The first sentence suggests “yes, you can,” but the last sentence says “no, you can’t.” Until WOTC clarifies its intent, we can’t know for sure. Given how egregious the rest of the terms are, though, I’m not inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt. WOTC could be taking the position that no one is able to publish even existing OGL 1.0 material after the 13th.

It seems to me like there's another level of ambiguity. "On or after January 13" could be read as modifying "D&D content you create", but it could alternatively be read as modifying "You cannot earn income". I'm not sure the distinction actually matters much, given WotC's underlying assertion that they can unilaterally change the terms of the OGL whenever they feel like it, but in another context, this seems like the sort of statement that would really need to be phrased unambiguously.

 

[kjdavies]

That seems to be covered under the definitions of Licensed and Unlicensed Content. They're trying to kill off the concept of Open Game Content and instead say that the 5.1 SRD is Licensed Content, and anything else that has been released as official D&D anything by WotC or a predecessor or successor (so that includes TSR) is now Unlicensed Content. The old SRDs would fall under the Unlicensed umbrella if this theory were to pan out.

Of course it all still hinges on the circular logic of their being able to unilaterally deauthorize 1.0(a) under its own section 9 by updating 1.0(a) via section 9 which they claim to have just deauthorized…

Thing is, I read 'Licensed Content' and 'Unlicensed Content' as being in terms of v1.1. They don't say "other SRDs are no longer open content under OGL v1.0a" because that's outside this license... and they benefit from this unclarity.

 

[Steel_Wind]

And while we're talking about potential grammar minutiae, consider also that the words "System Reference Document" and the abbreviation "SRD" are always used in the singular as well. There have been several SRDs, and the one that 1.1 is referencing is always stated to be the most-recent one (I believe 5.1 is the most recent, right?).

And in addition to that, something called the "System Reverence Document (draft version)" that has a copyright of 1999, 2000 that was also released with Open Game Content and referenced by a 3rd party publisher and appeared in Section 15's released under the OGL 1.0 license. That is again technically not the same as a "System Reference Document" as used in the 1.1 language.

There is much lack of specificity.

joe b.

Every culture has its language, traditions, terms of art, and conventions.

In the law, and especially in contracts, the general rule is that the singular means plural, he means he/she/they/it and person means individual, partnership, corporation, trust, or other entity. Typically, this is mentioned in a clause in some part of the legalese of the contract, but as we don't have the legal text, I can't yet point you specifically to it -- but I know enough to know it is overwhelmingly likely to be there.

tl;dr: you are jumping at shadows here.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I must say that the document as presented is not the legal OGL 1.1 but some kind of precis/commentary however;
Would I be correct in surmising that:
Stuff derived via the OGL 1.0(a) and derived from OGC (SRD) other than SRD 5.1 are not covered by this licence unless one accepts this licence in which case one engages not to use OGL 1.0(a) in any context.
So by my estimation Pathfinder 1 & 2 are fine, they are OGC via OGL 1.0 and SRD 3.5
Stuff like Esper Genesis or Evil Hat's Everyday Heroes are more problematic but defensible as long as the creators do not accept OGL 1.1 and they may have to explicitly renounce using 1.1
Any thing using 5.1 going forward with no legacy precedent will be harder to defend under the OGL 1.0(a)

 

[overgeeked]

Nvm.