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

[rpd9803]

Only if it's separatable and the rest of your work isn't an adaptation/derivative. For alot of content it would be a clear adaption/derivative and under SA you must license those with a SA.

I don't. The whole backlash was from WOTC trying to pull the rug out from under everyone. You can whitewash that by calling it 'favorable terms' if you want, but it was far more than that.

Everyone seems hyperbolic, as a player that doesn't use much OGL content (basically only when I run a DCC funnel), its not pulling the rug out from me, its only pulling the rug out from under people that publish works under the OGL, which is not the community but mayyyyyyybe .05%? There are millions of DND players. The WOTC's aren't going to show up on my doorstep and burn my OGL books.

 

[FrogReaver]

Forgive my non-lawyerness, But does this speak to the difference in revocation and 'authorization' (as the OGL seemed to couch 'current offer' for lack of better lawyer words) .. as in, it seems the OGL to me did not assert or oblgiate WOTC to offer it as-is forever, only that once a work decided to use it, the terms would apply in perpetuity?

It seems the layperson DND community drew the conclusion that 'revocation' was related to 'offered' instead of governing existing agreements, and that no clear language seemed to exist around precisely the terms of the offering of the OGL..
And it seems like the CC-BY gets around that by basically saying "if anyone has a copy that has the CC-BY on it, its still CC-BY" essentially.

Sorry if my understanding or vernacular is elementary! I am but a humble software developer.

The running theory on OGL is that it functioned via granting rights to sublicense and thus took WOTC out of it for downstream parties altogether. This is different than the running theories for the CC-BY, despite quite a few similarities in the licenses.

 

[FrogReaver]

Everyone seems hyperbolic, as a player that doesn't use much OGL content (basically only when I run a DCC funnel), its not pulling the rug out from me, its only pulling the rug out from under people that publish works under the OGL, which is not the community but mayyyyyyybe .05%? There are millions of DND players. The WOTC's aren't going to show up on my doorstep and burn my OGL books.

If your moral compass doesn't say that's outright wrong, I don't think we are going to agree on much.

 

[pemerton]

I get your reservations - it's a fairly unique clause.

I would separate it into 2 parts.
1. Can you contractually agree to make an offer in the future. - we all agree this is possible i think
2. Can you contractually agree an offer in the future will be automatic. -i think this is really what is giving you pause?

Yes. As I've mentioned in several posts, I am trying to understand the legal mechanism of the "automatic offer". My own thinking hasn't progressed beyond agency, but I'm not all that satisfied with that as an analysis. (Partly because I worry about the fiduciary aspect, which clearly the CC licence does not intend or contemplate.)

Forgive my non-lawyerness, But does this speak to the difference in revocation and 'authorization' (as the OGL seemed to couch 'current offer' for lack of better lawyer words) .. as in, it seems the OGL to me did not assert or oblgiate WOTC to offer it as-is forever, only that once a work decided to use it, the terms would apply in perpetuity?

It seems the layperson DND community drew the conclusion that 'revocation' was related to 'offered' instead of governing existing agreements, and that no clear language seemed to exist around precisely the terms of the offering of the OGL..
And it seems like the CC-BY gets around that by basically saying "if anyone has a copy that has the CC-BY on it, its still CC-BY" essentially.

With the OGL, WotC is not obliged to offer in perpetuity, but every licensee is obliged to offer to license the OGC by way of sub-license, and they make the offer by using the OGC and thus becoming bound by the terms of the OGL.

The CC-BY takes out the sub-licensing device, and tries to have it that every downstream transmission of the material generates an offer directly from the licensor (ie an "automatic offer").

 

[rpd9803]

The running theory on OGL is that it functioned via granting rights to sublicense and thus took WOTC out of it for downstream parties altogether. This is different than the running theories for the CC-BY, despite quite a few similarities in the licenses.

I think I understand what you're getting at. The complexity of these liceneses seem like a big trap for young players.. I see CC-BY-4.0, I know pretty well what I can and can't do with that content.. if I see OGL (or presumably the "ORC" or whatever else) and its immediately unclear to me what I can do with what part of a textual description of a spell, for but once example.

I think as a software developer, its easier for me to draw a circle around mechanics vs content/flavor/"Product Identity" than most, but I would love a licnese that makes clear that the mechanics (data structures / formulas) are free and can't be "captured" by closed licensing, but license the flavor any way you choose as a publisher, and leave the decision to me to decide whether or not I purchase it considering the work and the terms of its purchase.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. As I've mentioned in several posts, I am trying to understand the legal mechanism of the "automatic offer". My own thinking hasn't progressed beyond agency, but I'm not all that satisfied with that as an analysis. (Partly because I worry about the fiduciary aspect, which clearly the CC licence does not intend or contemplate.)

I think my disconnect here is I don't understand why it cannot simply be a contractual mechanism. (I tend to think of contractual as legal but I think for you there is a distinction).

 

[pemerton]

I think I understand what you're getting at. The complexity of these liceneses seem like a big trap for young players.. I see CC-BY-4.0, I know pretty well what I can and can't do with that content.. if I see OGL (or presumably the "ORC" or whatever else) and its immediately unclear to me what I can do with what part of a textual description of a spell, for but once example.

My view, admittedly based on limited sampling, is that many publishers who use the OGL are not very clear in their declarations of OGC and Product Identity.

 

[rpd9803]

If your moral compass doesn't say that's outright wrong, I don't think we are going to agree on much.

My moral compass doesn't read strongly on anything that happens with rules for organizing make-believe with your friends, but that strikes me as a poor indicator of whether or not we'd agree on things.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think I understand what you're getting at. The complexity of these liceneses seem like a big trap for young players.. I see CC-BY-4.0, I know pretty well what I can and can't do with that content.. if I see OGL (or presumably the "ORC" or whatever else) and its immediately unclear to me what I can do with what part of a textual description of a spell, for but once example.

I think as a software developer, its easier for me to draw a circle around mechanics vs content/flavor/"Product Identity" than most, but I would love a licnese that makes clear that the mechanics (data structures / formulas) are free and can't be "captured" by closed licensing, but license the flavor any way you choose as a publisher, and leave the decision to me to decide whether or not I purchase it considering the work and the terms of its purchase.

I have fewer questions about OGL material and how the OGL license works and where those lines are than I do about CC-BY. That said I've had a good 2 week head start reading on the OGL. So i think it mostly boils down to familiarity.

 

[FrogReaver]

My moral compass doesn't read strongly on anything that happens with rules for organizing make-believe with your friends, but that strikes me as a poor indicator of whether or not we'd agree on things.

There you go again with the whitewash.