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

[Aspirinsmurf]

Every lawyer in this thread has had different interpretations. He is the only one that has chimed in so far on mine.

So 1 lawyer saying something isn’t super convincing in it’s own IMO.

I don't think any lawyer has agreed to your position specifically, if I understand what your position is.

I mused about the possibility of the OGL creating a collective of "Contributors" who are collectively obliged to act in a certain way regarding the entirety of the OGC in perpetuity, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. And I am no lawyer anyway.

No copyrights are being transferred under the OGL regime (only the right to use copyrighted material under certain conditions), and the OGL isn't the articles of association for some entity separate from the parties to the contract(s). Neither is it a statute. It's a series of contracts.

 

[FrogReaver]

I am not sure what this means.

Example: WotC releases the SRD, company A becomes a licensee of WotC and releases its own product which contains part of WotC's OGC and new OGC of company A. Company B then publishes something that includes the OGL license and part of A's OGC.

Who is the contributor / licensor of B in your understanding?

Assuming you mean that they publish some original OGC of company A that doesn't depend on WOTC's OGC then they would license directly with Company A only. Company A would be the sole contributor/licensor (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

Assuming you mean they publish both WOTC and Company A OGC that's included in company A's product then they would list both Company A and Wotc as copyright holders - both of which would be Contributors/licensors of the OGC they are using. (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think any lawyer has agreed to your position specifically, if I understand what your position is.

Agreed. Though only pemerton has voiced disagreement.

I mused about the possibility of the OGL creating a collective of "Contributors" who are collectively obliged to act in a certain way regarding the entirety of the OGC in perpetuity, but I don't think that's necessarily the case. And I am no lawyer anyway.

That's fine.

No copyrights are being transferred under the OGL regime (only the right to use copyrighted material under certain conditions),

Agreed

and the OGL isn't the articles of association for some entity separate from the parties to the contract(s).

Agreed - but possibly more so on technicality than what you are envisioning.

Neither is it a statute.

Agreed.

It's a series of contracts.

Agreed - though it may be in a different sense depending on the view one takes.

IMO. All these statemetns are true of my view and the other.

 

[FrogReaver]

sure, but they are less likely to, and so far I have not really seen you make a good case, most of your recent replies to @pemerton amount to 'nah-uh' for all I can tell. See 2513 for a blatant example of this.

I doubt my 2513 and yours are the same. Otherwise I'd be happy to take a look.

 

[mamba]

Assuming you mean that they publish some original OGC of company A that doesn't depend on WOTC's OGC then they would license directly with Company A only. Company A would be the sole contributor/licensor (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

Assuming you mean they publish both WOTC and Company A OGC that's included in company A's product then they would list both Company A and Wotc as copyright holders - both of which would be Contributors/licensors of the OGC they are using. (under the view that contributors aren't a collective and OGC isn't a pool')

the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though)

So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to

"those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense"

WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15.

I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it...

 

[mamba]

I doubt my 2513 and yours are the same. Otherwise I'd be happy to take a look.

pretty sure it is the same, but I added a link to the post. Here it is again

He is mostly saying 'you cannot explain X' and your reply is 'yes I can' instead of actually doing so

 

[FrogReaver]

the first was the case I was going for, but I do agree with both answers (IANAL though)

So how does this mesh with what you wrote in the intial post I replied to

"those who license under the OGL do so with the contributors and not with a licensee trying to sublicense"

WotC clearly is only a contributor, but A is both a licensee of WotC and a contributor of its own OGC. Is your point that B is not sublicensing WotC's OGC from A? I'd agree with that too (again, IANAL), why else would you need to include both in section 15.

Yes. That’s my point!! Exploring the implications of that was what I had intended to do but I’m bogged down in defending the notion that party A is not sublicensing WOTCs OGC to party B in this example.

I noticed you have 'under the view that the OGC is not a pool' as your caveat. Do you still believe it is, or have we moved on from that point at least? I guess not fully at a minimum, why else include it...

I had intended to set it aside today for discussing other things. But y’all keep dragging me back into that discussion.

I still lean toward that view but again I can be persuaded otherwise.

 

[FrogReaver]

pretty sure it is the same, but I added a link to the post. Here it is again

He is mostly saying 'you cannot explain X' and your reply is 'yes I can' instead of actually doing so

Thanks. FYI post counts change depending on who has you blocked or who you have blocked.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Regarding consideration flowing both ways under the OGL 1.0a, this is achieved by Section 7, which severely restricts the licensee's normal rights of fair use in regards to trademarks and the declared Product Identity.

 

[mamba]

I had intended to set it aside today for discussing other things. But y’all keep dragging me back into that discussion.

I still lean toward that view but again I can be persuaded otherwise.

isn’t the fact that B licensed from both A and WotC rather than from either when using both OGCs already contradicting this?

Or is that just your concession rather than your understanding?

It feels like that is a pretty fundamental issue, ie if you get that one wrong all conclusions you build upon it are bound to be wrong as well. Maybe that one needs sorting out first and that is why it keeps coming up