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

[dave2008]

Whether "the Contributors" should be read collectively or distributively is a matter of construction. I think the distributed reading is more plausible, because a licence flows from each distinctly in respect of their own copyright.

Damn @pemerton, you make legal speech so sexy!

 

[FrogReaver]

It seems fairly clear to me that, when the OGL was drafted, promulgated, and taken up by 3PPs, no one on either side of the agreement contemplated in any practical sense WotC withdrawing its offer to license. Even the stuff on the FAQ about revocation I think is more focused on WotC trying to revoke issued licences rather than WotC withdrawing its standing offer. (At least that's my recollection. I'm happy to be corrected if my recollection is false - I haven't gone back to the FAQ text to double check.)

FAQ 22 was interesting.

22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?

Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.

 

[masdog]

FAQ 22 was interesting.

22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?

Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.

So this FAQ makes the OGL read like a copyleft license.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

So this FAQ makes the OGL read like a copyleft license.

It is for the actual OGC part, yes. But you don't technically have to contribute to that "bucket". This guy wrote a PhD on it, and he explains it better than I could.

Wizards of the Coast Open Game License

Did Dungeons and Dragons change the copyright world? Most companies use copyright licenses to strictly control the reproduction of intellectual property; the makers of Dungeons & Dragons went anoth...

www.lawinsider.com

 

[pemerton]

FAQ 22 was interesting.

22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?

Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.

What are you saying is interesting about it?

To me it seems fairly straightforward: it's explaining how the offer and acceptance provision works. The word "receive" isn't a technical term, but I think the overall intent is clear enough. The bit about "anyone you distribute" OGC to is explaining that licensees enjoy a power to sub-license.

I don't see how this FAQ has any bearing on what happens if WotC withdraws its offer to license its OGC.

 

[Enrahim2]

What are you saying is interesting about it?

I cannot speak for FrogReaver, but to me this is the part that might be interesting in terms of your approach to trying to understand what is meant by "open gaming content":

If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.

This choice of words making you a licensee rather than merely a licensor I think is the interesting detail. To me this reads as you have provided a body of your own original work to the pool of OGC, and that you indeed license the use of this work from the contributors, despite it only containing material of your own making.

I don't think it is critical, but this seem to lend itself better to the idea of OGC being a universal pool of content to be drawn from, rather than content specifically tied to a single product/use of the license.

At the very least this seem like so ething a bit beyonnd simply stating trivial properties of licensing in general, as in the normal case I presume someone publishing something original with a license offer attached would not be considered a licensee?

 

[Enrahim2]

This choice of words making you a licensee rather than merely a licensor I think is the interesting detail. To me this reads as you have provided a body of your own original work to the pool of OGC, and that you indeed license the use of this work from the contributors, despite it only containing material of your own making.

Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?

 

[pemerton]

Oh, replying my past self: I just realised this has much wider implications! The main argument I have seen for wizards possibly being able to withdraw their srd offer is due to their role as licensor. But if indeed they also are indeed a licensee of the OGC of the srds, wouldn't that mean that they are similarly bound to the requirement of offering the license to this content as other licensees?

WoC isn't licensing its content to itself. It owns the copyright.

 

[tomBitonti]

FAQ 22 was interesting.

22. Who is the "Licensee" referred to as "You" by the License?

Any recipient of any material using the Open Game License. In other words, you become a Licensee when you receive Open Game Content, and anyone you distribute that content to (or any derivative works based on that content) also becomes a Licensee. If you want to use the Open Game License in conjunction with some work that is wholly your own original creation, you become a Licensee when you first distribute that work using the OGL.

I find the last sentence problematic for licensees: That last sentence seems to imply that the particular license for a new product doesn’t exist until the product is distributed. Implying that the license offer can be withdrawn while the product is being created. That is, assuming that the license offer can be withdrawn.

I don’t understand the “anyone you distribute the content to” becomes a licensee statement. I’m a licensee? I’ve never distributed OGC.

TomB

 

[FrogReaver]

What are you saying is interesting about it?

To me it seems fairly straightforward: it's explaining how the offer and acceptance provision works. The word "receive" isn't a technical term, but I think the overall intent is clear enough. The bit about "anyone you distribute" OGC to is explaining that licensees enjoy a power to sub-license.

I don't see how this FAQ has any bearing on what happens if WotC withdraws its offer to license its OGC.

1. Despite claims that you must publish under OGL 1.0a to become a licensee, the faq says you become a licensee upon receiving OGC.

This is important due to all the people rushing to publish under OGL 1.0a.

2. The FAQ also claims that distributing under the OGL 1.0a (even for works wholly your own) makes you a licensee - implication being that WOTC is also a licensee to the OGL 1.0a.

3. Taken together this strongly suggests that OGC is a shared pool of content and also that the ‘Contributors’ in the license function as a single entity instead of separate ones each licensing their content separately under OGL 1.0a.

Thus I would say that the contributors as a whole would have to withdraw the offer to license OGC. WOTC is a licensee and is not the entity making the license offer in the OGL 1.0a.