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

[FrogReaver]

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

Every lawyer in this thread has had different interpretations. He is the only one that has chimed in so far on mine.

So 1 lawyer saying something isn’t super convincing in it’s own IMO.

 

[FrogReaver]

One claim I’ll push back on is licensing with people you have never met. Software licenses accomplish this all the time and they don’t necessarily grant any rights to sublicensee. So I know it’s legally possible - though I don’t know the nuances involved.

 

[mamba]

One claim I’ll push back on is licensing with people you have never met. Software licenses accomplish this all the time and they don’t necessarily grant any rights to sublicensee. So I know it’s legally possible - though I don’t know the nuances involved.

the OGL does the same, it just also allows sublicensing...

 

[FrogReaver]

Let X be the owner. Let L be the initial licensee. Let F be the friends. How do you envisage X directly issuing a licence to F, whom X has never met and doens't even know exists?

I'm not saying there is no answer to this. But you aren't providing one.

I don't know the mechanisms or nuances here, but I do know software licenses accomplish this all the time. Maybe you can explain how they do it and what is different if anything about this proposed license or even better the OGL 1.0a.

There are two mechanisms I can think of, whereby F gets a licence to be on X's property. One is for F to make L an agent. The other is for F to give L a power to sub-license. The OGL doesn't say anything about appointing agents. (Except in section 9.) But it does confer an entitlement to use, which expressly encompasses a power to licence. So to me it seems pretty clear.

I think there must be at least a 3rd as software licenses don't rely on either of those methods.

By "designation" I take you to mean WotC specifying what parts of its SRD it is prepared to license as OGC in the terms set out in the OGL.

Yes. And Thank you for not just asking me what this means.

I understand why you don't engage with the legal reasoning - you lack the expertise to do so. What I don't understand is why you continue to confidently assert your view. What do you think you are adding to peoples' understanding of their rights and obligations under the OGL?

That's a good start. I'm adding to my understanding, hopefully theirs too, but my focus is on me. I'm not attempting to be a teacher telling people how things work. I make assertions with reasoning in hopes that they will either be demonstrated false or will be accepted.

 

[mamba]

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

sure, but do you have as good reason to do so? From what I have seen you just make wild, legally incoherent assertions. And when a lawyer tells you that that is what they are, you pretend like they aren't and continue right on making them (instead of actually engaging with the questions asked or refuting the points made) , because obviously your understanding as an amateur is just as good as that of someone who went to university and has been practicing for several years, just like that holds true for any other given subject

 

[FrogReaver]

the OGL does the same, it just also allows sublicensing...

I agree the OGL technically allows sublicensing. I'm not disputing that. My position is that those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense. Besides statements that it doesn't work this way, I've not seen any reasoning that leads to this being the case.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Yep. For the most part it's all about the facts of the accident. Who is at fault and why(bunch of laws on that). What's covered by insurance. What the injuries are and the extent to which they affect the plaintiff. That's most of the battle since it's so interpretive. Both sides have experts playing up or down the injuries to the extent that they can get away with without jeopardizing license or reputation.

Now, sometimes there are details that matter. If an accident happens at insurance renewal time there can sometimes be issues that have to be determined about when the old coverage ended and the new coverage went into effect, and oddball cases that might or might not fall under the insurance policy that have to be argued by both sides. Liability can also be unclear sometimes.

 

[FrogReaver]

sure, but do you have as good reason to do so? From what I have seen you just make wild, legally incoherent assertions. And when a lawyer tells you that that is what they are, you pretend like they aren't and continue right on making them (instead of actually engaging with the questions asked or refuting the points made) , because obviously your understanding as an amateur is just as good as that of someone who went to university and has been practicing for several years, just like that holds true for any other given subject

Experts can be wrong. Their expertise means they should be making better more convincing arguments. I want to see those better more convincing arguments. So far all I get is a lawyer said it so it must be true. Give me the argument and the reasons or it's just a faulty appeal to authority.

*Note, I'm more likely to be wrong - and that's acknowledged, but if i'm wrong it's not because an expert said, if i'm wrong it's what the expert said makes sense and refutres what i said.

 

[mamba]

I agree the OGL technically allows sublicensing. I'm not disputing that. My position is that those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense. Besides statements that it doesn't work this way, I've not seen any reasoning that leads to this being the case.

I am not sure what this means.

Example: WotC releases the SRD, company A becomes a licensee of WotC and releases its own product which contains part of WotC's OGC and new OGC of company A. Company B then publishes something that includes the OGL license and part of A's OGC.

Who is the contributor / licensor of B in your understanding?

 

[mamba]

Experts can be wrong.

sure, but they are less likely to, and so far I have not really seen you make a good case, most of your recent replies to @pemerton amount to 'nah-uh' for all I can tell. See 2513 for a blatant example of this.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Every lawyer in this thread has had different interpretations. He is the only one that has chimed in so far on mine.

So 1 lawyer saying something isn’t super convincing in it’s own IMO.

I don't think any lawyer has agreed to your position specifically, if I understand what your position is.

I mused about the possibility of the OGL creating a collective of "Contributors" who are collectively obliged to act in a certain way regarding the entirety of the OGC in perpetuity, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. And I am no lawyer anyway.

No copyrights are being transferred under the OGL regime (only the right to use copyrighted material under certain conditions), and the OGL isn't the articles of association for some entity separate from the parties to the contract(s). Neither is it a statute. It's a series of contracts.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not sure what this means.

Example: WotC releases the SRD, company A becomes a licensee of WotC and releases its own product which contains part of WotC's OGC and new OGC of company A. Company B then publishes something that includes the OGL license and part of A's OGC.

Who is the contributor / licensor of B in your understanding?

Assuming you mean that they publish some original OGC of company A that doesn't depend on WOTC's OGC then they would license directly with Company A only. Company A would be the sole contributor/licensor (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

Assuming you mean they publish both WOTC and Company A OGC that's included in company A's product then they would list both Company A and Wotc as copyright holders - both of which would be Contributors/licensors of the OGC they are using. (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think any lawyer has agreed to your position specifically, if I understand what your position is.

Agreed. Though only pemerton has voiced disagreement.

I mused about the possibility of the OGL creating a collective of "Contributors" who are collectively obliged to act in a certain way regarding the entirety of the OGC in perpetuity, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. And I am no lawyer anyway.

That's fine.

No copyrights are being transferred under the OGL regime (only the right to use copyrighted material under certain conditions),

Agreed

and the OGL isn't the articles of association for some entity separate from the parties to the contract(s).

Agreed - but possibly more so on technicality than what you are envisioning.

Neither is it a statute.

Agreed.

It's a series of contracts.

Agreed - though it may be in a different sense depending on the view one takes.

IMO. All these statemetns are true of my view and the other.

 

[FrogReaver]

sure, but they are less likely to, and so far I have not really seen you make a good case, most of your recent replies to @pemerton amount to 'nah-uh' for all I can tell. See 2513 for a blatant example of this.

I doubt my 2513 and yours are the same. Otherwise I'd be happy to take a look.

 

[mamba]

Assuming you mean that they publish some original OGC of company A that doesn't depend on WOTC's OGC then they would license directly with Company A only. Company A would be the sole contributor/licensor (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

Assuming you mean they publish both WOTC and Company A OGC that's included in company A's product then they would list both Company A and Wotc as copyright holders - both of which would be Contributors/licensors of the OGC they are using. (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though)

So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to

"those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense"

WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15.

I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it...

 

[mamba]

I doubt my 2513 and yours are the same. Otherwise I'd be happy to take a look.

pretty sure it is the same, but I added a link to the post. Here it is again

He is mostly saying 'you cannot explain X' and your reply is 'yes I can' instead of actually doing so

 

[FrogReaver]

the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though)

So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to

"those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense"

WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15.

Yes. That’s my point!! Exploring the implications of that was what I had intended to do but I’m bogged down in defending the notion that party A is not sublicensing WOTCs OGC to party B in this example.

I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it...

I had intended to set it aside today for discussing other things. But y’all keep dragging me back into that discussion.

I still lean toward that view but again I can be persuaded otherwise.

 

[FrogReaver]

pretty sure it is the same, but I added a link to the post. Here it is again

He is mostly saying 'you cannot explain X' and your reply is 'yes I can' instead of actually doing so

Thanks. FYI post counts change depending on who has you blocked or who you have blocked.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Regarding consideration flowing both ways under the OGL 1.0a, this is achieved by Section 7, which severely restricts the licensee's normal rights of fair use in regards to trademarks and the declared Product Identity.

 

[mamba]

I had intended to set it aside today for discussing other things. But y’all keep dragging me back into that discussion.

I still lean toward that view but again I can be persuaded otherwise.

isn’t the fact that B licensed from both A and WotC rather than from either when using both OGCs already contradicting this?

Or is that just your concession rather than your understanding?

It feels like that is a pretty fundamental issue, ie if you get that one wrong all conclusions you build upon it are bound to be wrong as well. Maybe that one needs sorting out first and that is why it keeps coming up