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

[S'mon]

To us laypeople you being entitled to remain on the property sounds like something we would call specific performance.

AFAICS my landlady already performed her side of the bargain when she made the property available to me. Maybe she has an obligation to keep the property in good repair. Indeed she's promised to send a handyman round to fix a couple things. If she fails to send the handyman round, I sue, and the court rules that's a breach of contract, they could in theory order the equitable remedy of specific performance. In reality they would award enough damages for me to hire my own handyman.

I think maybe the confusion arises because spec per is an 'equitable remedy' for the claimant/plaintiff, not a strict contract legal right, and the court only orders equitable remedies to the claimant if 'legal' rights are inadequate. The normal legal right is damages. But telling the landlady in breach of contract she can't kick me out of the property I'm residing in is technically not a remedy for me, it's her failing in a claim against me.

 

[Enrahim2]

As presented, v1.1 is the only way to license certain content, and you cannot pick another license (says explicitly v1.0a is not authorized). However, v1.1 is not authorized for that other content (can't be because the v1.1 declares the two licenses are not compatible that way) and you would need another license. However, as I read it the obligations the two licenses put on you for the document cannot both be satisfied, so one way or another (or both! it could be both!) you'd be in breach.

Ah now I see. Your argument seem to hinge on a particular understanding of the "authorized" term noone really seem to understand the scope and legal meaning of. Hence you get to a different conclusion than me

But consider this: Ryan said that the point of "authorised" was to distinguish between draft and final text for the version. If someone (by mistake) happened to use a draft text when declaring self made ogl and offering lisence to it, it appear the intention is that someone holding (and hence abiding to) a valid license based on an authorised (final) text of the OGL version would still be able to use this license grant to copy the material without having to abide with the potentially seriously flawed text of the draft accompanying the initial release of the material.
This way making it possible to "rescue" material published under flawed terms. The asymmetry lies in that if there was published a draft with unintentionally favorable terms, people shouldn't be able to use this to aquire unfair rights to material published under a final, presumably fairer version.

Hence my understanding of one being authorised and the other not, is in no way any indication of "incompatibility". Indeed the authorised 1.0a version (text) spells out in which way these are compatible: Those holding an license based on an authorised text are free to use that license to copy, modify and distribute content published based upon any ogl license version (text), independent on if that text was ever authorised. The only requirement is that wizards ever published the text, presenting it as an ogl version.

Hence my interpretation would require you to find a different wording than if the text is authorised or not to claim a incompatibility that would prevent a holder of a licence based on an authorised ogl-1.1 text to copy the 1.0a material.

If I read this all correctly, bearing in mind I am thinking only logically and not legally, being a programmer and still not a lawyer. Also, very sleepy now...

I am also a programmer and still not a lawyer. It is said that a contract is like a machine; I guess we both are eager to understand the source code this machine is running

 

[pemerton]

FATE has been dual licenced for a while under both the OGL and a Creative Commons licence. I suspect that the owner of the IP has the power to make two offers to licence their IP and let the licensee select which one they prefer. Or does this fall afoul of the restriction in the OGL about adding any additional terms or restrictions? My suspicion is that the contract isn't formed until the licensee selects one offer or the other, so this clause doesn't come into play until then. Is this the correct reading?

It seems right to me.

 

[pemerton]

I didnt quite catch what was the basis for envisioning liitations

The basis for envisioning limitations is that a variant licence, under section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, must be a version of that licence.

I have doubts - not definitive by any means, but not unreasoned either - that something can count as a version of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, in a context where licensees can pick and choose among versions, if it does not preserve the core obligations and permissions around OGC.

 

[pemerton]

Does 'irrevocable' mean 'cannot be terminated'? Or does it mean 'committed until terminated'?

I understand an irrevocable licence to be one which cannot be revoked. Clearly a licence given on the terms set out the OGL v 1.0/1.0a can be revoked, in at least one context, namely, breach (as is set out in section 13).

I also see that @bmcdaniel has replied, and what he says is (i) very clear and (ii) seems absolutely correct to me. Irrevocable is not a "keyword" - it's a word with an ordinary language meaning that can be used in a contract to convey whatever it is the parties want to convey by using it.

 

[Enrahim2]

The basis for envisioning limitations is that a variant licence, under section 9 of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, must be a version of that licence.

I have doubts - not definitive by any means, but not unreasoned either - that something can count as a version of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, in a context where licensees can pick and choose among versions, if it does not preserve the core obligations and permissions around OGC.

Well, I can completely agree that this is obviously a gross overstep of what would appear to be the the original intention of the clause. It indeed looks mostly like the licensing equvalent of an escalation of privileges exploit (used in software if a program like a virus manage to execute commands using a higher level of privileges than it is supposed to have, like a guest user program acting as an administrator)

However the mechanism and definition of what constitutes a new version in ogl 1.0a appears very clear: The only condition presented is that it is published by wizards or one of their agents (and presumably have to be presented as a new version) If wizards ever publishes the document that has been leaked it appear that at least the 1.0a text clearly claim it is indeed a new version. And we never need to leave the scope of 1.0a to find the central claim of what that entails.

Hence in order to be able to claim that a potentially wizards release of the leaked document is not a version of ogl, it wouldnt be enough to efer to everyday understanding of words in a way that can be important to understand terms across texts. You would need to somehow invoke some overall principle that limits a contracts ability to effectively redefine the term "version" away from everyday understanding within the scope of a single paragraph.

And this is where IANAL limits me. I have no idea if there might be any such legal mechanism under any juristiction?

 

[S'mon]

I also see that @bmcdaniel has replied, and what he says is (i) very clear and (ii) seems absolutely correct to me.

@bmcdaniel writes forum posts better and clearer than any Contract text book I can think of!

 

[Knuffeldraak]

The original post says nothing of the sort. You're reading things into it that aren't there. (Admittedly, that part of the post is very sloppily worded, so I can see how it could be interpreted that way.)

This doesn't mean the derivative works are under the same copyright, nor does it mean that you can't copyright your derivative work. I'm pretty sure all it's trying to say is that since the SRD is copyrighted, you're prevented from creating and selling derivative works without permission—that is, it protects against the unauthorized creation of derivative works.

Again, the OGL 1.0 itself tells you you have a copyright on your derivative work. It specifically directs to you add your own copyright notice to Section 15. Why would it do that, if you didn't have a copyright on it?

You... might want to read that before commenting further on this topic, because it's very relevant. I mean, if the U. S. Copyright Office explicitly says you can copyright derivative works (and it does), I think that very much trumps anything anyone in this thread says, including the OP.

Hi! Thanks for your patience on explaining this.

Yes, I fully understand now that, when making Derivative Works, you are allowed to copy-right the Changes that you make from said work (but not the content that you've drawn the source material of). So in that regard, I do see the point where someone can't "just" use your work.

There is however one question that remains though. In order to be given permission to create a derivative work and/or publish it, usually you need to be given permission of that. Mostly this permission is simply given by default, however in WOTC's case, there are certain terms/conditions applied to being allowed to use WOTC's stuff. The OGL renders you in the clear of using WOTC's content without them invoking their copyright on you, however their FCP narrates the terms what rights you end up having for using WOTC's works. With the one I want to refer to being;

(Source: Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast )

How does Copyright keep hold if, part of using WOTC's IP for your works, comes the agreement that they may use it? My expectation is that you can't really sue someone for 'using your work' if you accepted on terms that allows them to 'use your work'.

 

[S'mon]

Hi! Thanks for your patience on explaining this.

Yes, I fully understand now that, when making Derivative Works, you are allowed to copy-right the Changes that you make from said work (but not the content that you've drawn the source material of). So in that regard, I do see the point where someone can't "just" use your work.

There is however one question that remains though. In order to be given permission to create a derivative work and/or publish it, usually you need to be given permission of that. Mostly this permission is simply given by default, however in WOTC's case, there are certain terms/conditions applied to being allowed to use WOTC's stuff. The OGL renders you in the clear of using WOTC's content without them invoking their copyright on you, however their FCP narrates the terms what rights you end up having for using WOTC's works. With the one I want to refer to being;

(Source: Fan Content Policy | Wizards of the Coast )

How does Copyright keep hold if, part of using WOTC's IP for your works, comes the agreement that they may use it?

Wow. That is some "policy"!

 

[Knuffeldraak]

Wow. That is some "policy"!

Shrug

It's been there for a very long time. Two years ago it was brought to attention a lot when some players in the MtG community noticed that some fan-art was used in a newly released card. The community was outraged and the artist was temporarily suspended for not coordinating this decision with WOTC, but ultimately they had no grounds to sue for change or compensations because of these terms.