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

[pemerton]

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

When WotC publishes a SRD with a notice of offer to license on the terms of the OGL, who has licensed anything to them such that they are a licensee?

 

[pemerton]

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.

No. @S'mon agrees with me on this:

Pemerton is an Australian lawyer and he does know what he's talking about, it's just that the technical point he's been making about offer/acceptance in contract is basically irrelevant to the important point - your bolded text - and even misleading to some people.

So does bmcdaniel:

as a matter of contract law, an offeree is generally permitted to terminate an ongoing offer. I can imagine that WOTC could announce "no more licensees" under the OGL and a court might enforce that, but it would not affect the current licensees who have accepted the terms of the OGL. Its not clear as a practical matter WOTC would prove that someone has not previously accepted the terms of the OGL. Its also not clear how this would affect sub-licensees who take a license from an existing licensee.

None of the above is particularly controversial. Its basic U.S. contract law.

As far as I know I'm the only poster to have identified a possible argument that the terms of the contractual grant of the licence oblige WotC to keep the offer on foot in some fashion.

 

[FrogReaver]

When WotC publishes a SRD with a notice of offer to license on the terms of the OGL, who has licensed anything to them such that they are a licensee?

say WOTC creates an SRD 6.1. The contributors of OGC would be granting WOTC a license to use all OGC for distributing(using) this new OGC under the OGL.

 

[FrogReaver]

As far as I know I'm the only poster to have identified a possible argument that the terms of the contractual grant of the licence oblige WotC to keep the offer on foot in some fashion.

I’ve argued that quite regularly.

 

[FrogReaver]

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

The “contributors”.

WOTC doesn’t have to use the content they are licensed for, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t licensed to use it.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

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

That would be their own, which is why the logic is somewhat circular.

But would this be different for anyone else who have contributed an original "SRD" ex nihilo?

As far as I know I'm the only poster to have identified a possible argument that the terms of the contractual grant of the licence oblige WotC to keep the offer on foot in some fashion.

Can you summarize that argument and comment on its strengths and weaknesses as compared to other interpretations?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

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.

I apologize for this characterization. I meant to say that @pemerton was the only one who clearly articulated that possibility in a way that I was able to understand. There might well be others who agree with it.

 

[mamba]

say WOTC creates an SRD 6.1. The contributors of OGC would be granting WOTC a license to use all OGC for distributing(using) this new OGC under the OGL.

that is not how this works, WotC would need to use parts of the 3pp’s OGC to become a licensee, otherwise everyone on this planet is a licensee

 

[Enrahim2]

that is not how this works, WotC would need to use parts of the 3pp’s OGC to become a licensee, otherwise everyone on this planet is a licensee

And how is everyone on the planet being a licensee absurd? (Given the idea that the open content should be available for everyone on the planet)

(Edit: also worth noting, the interpretation path we are looking at here doesnt require everyone to be licensees as not everyone has actually "received" any OGC, but I think this is unimportant to the question asked)

 

[Old Fezziwig]

And how is everyone on the planet being a licensee absurd? (Given the idea that the open content should be available for everyone on the planet)

(Edit: also worth noting, the interpretation path we are looking at here doesnt require everyone to be licensees as not everyone has actually "received" any OGC, but I think this is unimportant to the question asked)

The offer of the license is available to everyone on the planet, but they have to accept the offer through use of the OGC (or whatever mechanism the OGL describes) to become a licensee. Until then, they're just potential licensees.