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

[FrogReaver]

None of which applies to any of the 5.1 SRD. I suppose if WotC wanted to use a third party creators product, they would have to do so via the OGL. So if WotC wanted to put out something for Level Up, that might apply. You'd have to ask one of the lawyers how that would work. For their own property, which includes the SRD 5.1, they have no need to license with anyone. They own it.

I’m not claiming they need the license. I’m claiming they have it. But not just for SRD 5.1, but for all other OGC.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not sure I follow your distinction here. You license OGC, duh, obviously. But that is not one amorphous mass, it is individual pieces of OGC from different authors. And you 6 tells you that you need to list them in 15t because you are not sublicensing their individual work. That they all agree to this is due to them all using the OGL, but that still makes this individual agreements

6 simply tells you that you must list the copyright holders for the OGC you use. Sections 2-4 tell you that you are licensed for ‘the open game content’. Note it doesn’t say ‘the open game content you use’ in sections 2-4.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Section 6 only tells you what to do when you use particular OGC. Sections 2-4 tell you what you are licensed for.

That's actually a good point. I was thinking about how you couldn't possibly be able to affix notices to all the OGC in existence without Using all of it yourself, but that provision actually only applies to the content that you Use. And so the "collective of Contributors" interpretation suddenly doesn't seem entirely unreasonable me again. I'd like to be proven wrong on that though.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's actually a good point. I was thinking about how you couldn't possibly be able to affix notices to all the OGC in existence without Using all of it yourself, but that provision actually only applies to the content that you Use. And so the "collective of Contributors" interpretation suddenly doesn't seem entirely unreasonable me again. I'd like to be proven wrong on that though.

Doesn’t help that open licenses are confusing as hell to decipher. They just don’t work as normally expected.

 

[mamba]

I’m not claiming they need the license. I’m claiming they have it. But not just for SRD 5.1, but for all other OGC.

The offer is obviously out there, but they have not entered into a license agreement... had they done so, the book they published would need to include the OGL after all, and they do not...

 

[FrogReaver]

The offer is obviously out there, but they have not entered into a license agreement... had they done so, the book they published would need to include the OGL after all, and they do not...

By publishing and distributing the 5.1 SRD they did enter into a licensing agreement with all contributors of OGC. They are now a licensee to that agreement. This gives them the right to use any OGC - provided they meet the requirements of the OGL.

 

[mamba]

6 simply tells you that you must list the copyright holders for the OGC you use. Sections 2-4 tell you that you are licensed for ‘the open game content’. Note it doesn’t say ‘the open game content you use’ in sections 2-4.

Sections 2 to 4 do not tell you that, but section6 definitely does

6: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of
any Open Game Content You are copying, modifying or distributing

Your interpretation of all OGC being one thing you accept as a whole or not at all is completely nonsensical

 

[mamba]

By publishing and distributing the 5.1 SRD they did enter into a licensing agreement with all contributors of OGC.

as a licensor

They are now a licensee to that agreement.

no

This gives them the right to use any OGC - provided they meet the requirements of the OGL.

they obviously have that right, the offer is extended to everyone, whether they accept it (thereby becoming a licensee) or not.

I give up, you are wrong, we have shown you wrong,. As I said, reread the last 5 pages, and keep doing it until you understand what was said.

 

[Matt Thomason]

The only real question here is whether or not we can keep sublicensing WotC's OGC to each other after WotC has revoked the initial offer. I think there are good reasons for why we should be able to so, and I'm pretty sure that the drafter intended for this to be the case.

I would, however, like to hear any and all arguments against that being the case.

Playing Devil's Advocate, or in this case Devil's Layman. As much as I hate the bad taste it leaves in my mouth to bring this argument:

The initial licensee (one working directly off the SRD) creates a derivative work from the Open Game Content within the SRD. This can be anything from writing a character class based upon the concepts and rules within the SRD to taking the entire SRD and converting it to HTML, Markdown, or other formats.
The resulting work is a derivative work created by the licensee, using the permissions granted by the license to do so, but the copyright for the derivative work only covers the additions or changes to the original work, not the original itself. (derivative work)
It would therefore appear to follow that the licensee only has the right to offer a license to their additions or changes (or rather, to offer their OGC to be combined in the license with other contributors offers.)

This appears to be backed up slightly by

5.Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Game Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

Stating that you need the rights in the first place to contribute material as OGC, an indication that Your Contributions are considered at least here, separate to the OGC within the work as a whole.

Now, taking into account

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.

read in conjunction with

(g) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content.

and

(c) "Distribute" means to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute;

At no point does the license mention the right for the licensee to sublicense any of the Used OGC. Instead, it seems to pass on the license offer from "the Contributors". Not making on their behalf, simply passing on the message that the Contributors have made offers - so if one or more are rescinding that offer, it's no longer available to accept.

This leaves the downstream licensee only able to "pass down" the OGC for which a valid offer still remains - that which any remaining Contributors own copyright to - their specific enhancements made in their derivative works - plus of course their own. Or in other words, the offer is made with big holes in it where OGC has been withdrawn.

I'm hoping here that as someone with zero actual legal knowledge, that I've missed something important and am horribly wrong.
My reading here, however, is in opposition to the intent and spirit of the offer that was communicated back in 2000. It's not the only way I can read it, but represents my attempt at making an interpretation favoring WotC.

 

[FrogReaver]

Playing Devil's Advocate, or in this case Devil's Layman. As much as I hate the bad taste it leaves in my mouth to bring this argument:

The initial licensee (one working directly off the SRD) creates a derivative work from the Open Game Content within the SRD. This can be anything from writing a character class based upon the concepts and rules within the SRD to taking the entire SRD and converting it to HTML, Markdown, or other formats.
The resulting work is a derivative work created by the licensee, using the permissions granted by the license to do so, but the copyright for the derivative work only covers the additions or changes to the original work, not the original itself. (derivative work)
It would therefore appear to follow that the licensee only has the right to offer a license to their additions or changes (or rather, to offer their OGC to be combined in the license with other contributors offers.)

This appears to be backed up slightly by


Stating that you need the rights in the first place to contribute material as OGC, an indication that Your Contributions are considered at least here, separate to the OGC within the work as a whole.

Now, taking into account

read in conjunction with

and

At no point does the license mention the right for the licensee to sublicense any of the Used OGC. Instead, it seems to pass on the license offer from "the Contributors". Not making on their behalf, simply passing on the message that the Contributors have made offers - so if one or more are rescinding that offer, it's no longer available to accept.

This leaves the downstream licensee only able to "pass down" the OGC for which a valid offer still remains - that which any remaining Contributors own copyright to - their specific enhancements made in their derivative works - plus of course their own. Or in other words, the offer is made with big holes in it where OGC has been withdrawn.

I'm hoping here that as someone with zero actual legal knowledge, that I've missed something important and am horribly wrong.
My reading here, however, is in opposition to the intent and spirit of the offer that was communicated back in 2000. It's not the only way I can read it, but represents my attempt at making an interpretation favoring WotC.

Section 1c talks says that Distributing includes licensing.

I’m not sure that talks you all the way but it should serve as a starting point to reshape your argument.