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

[pedr]

Implying that the OneDnD changes will be made to SRD 5.1 rather than a separate SRD 5.5 release, and saying that publishing content based on SRD 5.1 means you agree to the OGL 1.1 is … clever? Underhand?

I suppose an interesting question would be whether a publication which claims to be based on 5esrd.com or some other publication of the contents of SRD 5.1 could avoid being seen as “licensed content” under the OGL 1.1, and not performance that means acceptance of 1.1.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

The focus here is on creators, but the main weakness I see is in the very narrow distribution methods in place today. Close off One Bookshelf and Kickstarter and it does not matter much if you are right about the nature of the contract in OGL 1.0A. This is also a direct nuclear strike to all VTT that do not have an agreement with WoTC - the most obvious being Foundry which scrapes materials from DND Beyond.

I have always assumed that DMS Guild and the WoTC materials are a super important revenue generator for Roll20 (since they own One Bookshelf now). Same for Fantasy Grounds, sales of official 5e and AD&D 2e materials has to be a very key revenue source.

A group of distributors that matter that is less than the fingers on one hand is pretty fragile if you need revenue to keep up the fight.

Sure, you can sue WoTC for illegally interfering with your business, but that will take years and years.

 

[Prime_Evil]

The assertion that the OGL v1.0a is no longer an authorised licence is made several times. But it is unclear whether this is dependent on the "you agree to the terms of this agreement" in the preamble. I suspect it does, but they are trying to give the impression it doesn't.

Their claim seems to be that performance under the OGL v.1.0a also indicates acceptance of the terms of the OGL v1.1, at least for material derived from v5.1 of the SRD. I have no idea whether you can claim that exercising your rights under an existing contract indicates acceptance of the terms of a second contract which supersedes the first one.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Implying that the OneDnD changes Will be made to SRD 5.1 rather than a separate SRD 5.5 release, and saying that publishing content based on SRD 5.1 means you agree to the OGL 1.1 is … clever? Underhand?

I suppose an interesting question would be whether a publication which claims to be based on 5esrd.com or some other publication of the contents of SRD 5.1 could avoid being seen as “licensed content” under the OGL 1.1, and not performance that means acceptance of 1.1.

back a month or so I asked if you used the 1D&D levels for subclass on a cleric could you use the old OGL... THIS MAY just be a way for them to say no, once you use that progression in this LP you automatically fall under this agreement.

 

[Greg Benage]

Implying that the OneDnD changes Will be made to SRD 5.1 rather than a separate SRD 5.5 release, and saying that publishing content based on SRD 5.1 means you agree to the OGL 1.1 is … clever? Underhand?

It's certainly underhanded...I'm not sure if it's clever. Why didn't they include SRD 3 or SRD 3.5 while they were at it? Paizo doesn't use SRD 5, so they don't get auto-opted into the agreement? Or Wizards thinks they can follow a chain of derivative work back from 5 to 3.5 to 3? The specification of SRD 5.1 is weird to me.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The assertion that the OGL v1.0a is no longer an authorised licence is made several times. But it is unclear whether this is dependent on the "you agree to the terms of this agreement" in the preamble. I suspect it does, but they are trying to give the impression it doesn't.

Their claim seems to be that performance under the OGL v.1.0a also indicates acceptance of the terms of the OGL v1.1, at least for material derived from v5.1 of the SRD. I have no idea whether you can claim that exercising your rights under an existing contract indicates acceptance of the terms of a second contract which supersedes the first one.

I still don't get why deauthorizing 1 agreement (IF THEY REALLY BELEIVE THEY CAN) would be hidden in another one instead of a stand alone announcement and form.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's certainly underhanded...I'm not sure if it's clever. Why didn't they include SRD 3 or SRD 3.5 while they were at it? Paizo doesn't use SRD 5, so they don't get auto-opted into the agreement? Or Wizards thinks they can follow a chain of derivative work back from 5 to 3.5 to 3? The specification of SRD 5.1 is weird to me.

or maybe it did start out with it being all of them and Paizo agreed to something to make sure the new license kept 3.5 alive?

 

[Greg Benage]

or maybe it did start out with it being all of them and Paizo agreed to something to make sure the new license kept 3.5 alive?

Could be. Or maybe they figure Paizo is best equipped to fight them, so they're willing to leave that horse out the barn. Dunno.

 

[Enrahim2]

Whoa. The statement that "t. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial." from the FAQ might actually have the following legal backing:

Publishing SRD 5.1 based content commersially triggers "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement." from the start of OGL-1.1 commersial

This in turn means that you have agreed to section II which states:
"If, and only if, You fully comply with the terms and conditions of this agreement, You may copy, use, modify and distribute Licensed Content around the world as part of Licensed Works on a commercial basis."

So the FAQ is right in light of these two points - You cannot publish comersially SRD 5.1 content if you don't want to accept 1.1, as the act of publishing this is an agreement trigger.

The weirdly placed formulation in the termination clause about no longer authorized is irrelevant - looking at that for justification for that claim seem like a fully red herring.

 

[S'mon]

I still don't get why deauthorizing 1 agreement (IF THEY REALLY BELEIVE THEY CAN) would be hidden in another one instead of a stand alone announcement and form.

Well the leaked document we're seeing was intended for terrorising some major 3PPs (like Paizo) under an NDA. It wasn't intended as a general announcement.