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

[FrogReaver]

that flies in the face of what a licensor and what a licensee are, and why there even are two terms… to me that just means the FAQ is sloppy, not that it somehow manages to redefine the English language

The license and not just the faq supports this. Distributing OGC makes one a licensee.

 

[FrogReaver]

According to the FAQ, yes. But not according to the text itself. Arguably, it's a gross simplification of the following interpretation (emphases mine in the following).

From section 3: "Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

"Using" is defined as to "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content."

"Distribute" is defined as "to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute".

Indeed, having "Used" OGC like they this by licensing it, WotC "must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that [they] Use".

There is then a case that WotC, having licensed OGC according to the license, has accepted the terms and is thus contractually bound to continue doing so. Like Bob Tarantino writes, "open content must remain open for all future users."

That sums it up nicely.

I’d also add that in the license the contributors of the OGC is the licensor. WOTC is not the licensor and cannot be the licensor as it cannot make the offer to use all OGC as it doesn’t have the copyright of all such material.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

That sums it up nicely.

I’d also add that in the license the contributors of the OGC is the licensor. WOTC is not the licensor and cannot be the licensor as it cannot make the offer to use all OGC as it doesn’t have the copyright of all such material.

Yes. WotC is certainly not the only licensor of OGC, no. There's a bit of a question about whether the Contributors are the licensors collectively or individually, and of course how that would interact with the existence of derived works in the ecosystem downstream. The ability to unilaterally revoke an offer doesn't depend on that nuance, though. That's obviously impossible, and it's not even what WotC is trying to do (they're trying, and rather obviously failing, to abuse their section 9 powers instead). Only @pemerton has really made any argument that there are plausible interpretations of the OGL that would let them unilaterally revoke the offer to contract under the terms of the OGL.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Edit: NM.

 

[FrogReaver]

By that reading, no one could be a licensor, as no one holds copyright on all OGC. WotC is certainly a licensor with respect to is own copyrighted material that it releases as OGC.

Collectively the contributors do hold all the necessary copyrights. Collectively they are the licensor.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Collectively the contributors do hold all the necessary copyrights. Collectively they are the licensor.

You're fast! I changed my mind about posting after I hit submit.

 

[FrogReaver]

You're fast! I changed my mind about posting after I hit submit.

Would you like me to delete my reply as well?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. WotC is certainly not the only licensor of OGC, no. There's a bit of a question about whether the Contributors are the licensors collectively or individually, and of course how that would interact with the existence of derived works in the ecosystem downstream. The ability to unilaterally revoke an offer doesn't depend on that nuance, though.

I think it does.

That's obviously impossible, and it's not even what WotC is trying to do (they're trying, and rather obviously failing, to abuse their section 9 powers instead).

That’s how it seems to me as well.

Only @pemerton has really made any argument that there are plausible interpretations of the OGL that would let them unilaterally revoke the offer to contract under the terms of the OGL.

Thus why I started this line with quoting him.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

Would you like me to delete my reply as well?

No, that's fine. Thank you for the offer, though.

 

[pemerton]

According to the FAQ, yes. But not according to the text itself. Arguably, it's a gross simplification of the following interpretation (emphases mine in the following).

From section 3: "Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Game Content You indicate Your acceptance of the terms of this License."

"Using" is defined as to "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content."

"Distribute" is defined as "to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute".

Indeed, having "Used" OGC like this by licensing it, WotC "must affix such a notice to any Open Game Content that [they] Use". If they don't, they're in breach. But sublicenses survive terminations for breach. So there's no "putting the genie back in the bottle" if it's already out there.

There is then a case that WotC, having licensed OGC according to the license, has accepted the terms and is thus contractually bound to continue doing so. Like Bob Tarantino writes, "open content must remain open for all future users."

@pemerton might disagree, but I hope he'll tell us why! I suspect this somewhat circular reasoning is unappealing for some reason.

Re the underlined: whose offer are you saying WotC has accepted?