Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8888222" data-attributes="member: 7039850"><p>Oh, this is great! The definition of "Unlicensed Content" actually are very vague. There are only 2 conditions described. One is that is non 5.1 srd published by wizards, but critically it doesn't say <em>all</em>. That there is not an implied all can also be gathered as that would have made the next part redundant. They then specify that this "include" certain monsters etc, then with a clarifying dash refering to previous ogls PI term. Again they do not say it include "all", when they describe monsters, spells etc, which might be interpreted that there are monsters etc that falls outside "unlicensed content". However the clarifying dash could be interpreted that this modulates which of those "included" categories are actually included, and hence it prohibits all previous PI. </p><p></p><p>In short the only thing clearly "Unlicensed Content" is PI that appear in works by wizard, and do not appear in the 5.1 SRD.</p><p></p><p><strong>This way of restricting "Unlisenced content" make perfect sense if wizard want to keep exploiting 1.0a!</strong> There are nothing requiring any OGC to be considered "Unlicensed Content", and hence lisencees are not restricted from using 1.0a content according to section 9. If wizards wanted to try lock down 1.0a content it would have been much simpler to just state "Any wizards content not considered "Licensed Content"?</p><p></p><p>I think the formulation as such clearly seem to define OGC as outside "Unlicensed Content" by virtue of the obvious contrasting of the given example. This might leave some grey areas like tsr era works currently published by wizards, but as there are no OGL currently allowing distribution of such at all, this particular lisence do not need to take a stance in that question.</p><p></p><p>Indeed this is a strong indicator that old OGC is intended to be exactly the relevant exception to "Unlicensed Content", <strong>Which seem like a very weird distinction to want to uphold with so many words if wizard has intended to "nullify"/"terminate" or "revoke" 1.0a</strong></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8888222, member: 7039850"] Oh, this is great! The definition of "Unlicensed Content" actually are very vague. There are only 2 conditions described. One is that is non 5.1 srd published by wizards, but critically it doesn't say [I]all[/I]. That there is not an implied all can also be gathered as that would have made the next part redundant. They then specify that this "include" certain monsters etc, then with a clarifying dash refering to previous ogls PI term. Again they do not say it include "all", when they describe monsters, spells etc, which might be interpreted that there are monsters etc that falls outside "unlicensed content". However the clarifying dash could be interpreted that this modulates which of those "included" categories are actually included, and hence it prohibits all previous PI. In short the only thing clearly "Unlicensed Content" is PI that appear in works by wizard, and do not appear in the 5.1 SRD. [B]This way of restricting "Unlisenced content" make perfect sense if wizard want to keep exploiting 1.0a![/B] There are nothing requiring any OGC to be considered "Unlicensed Content", and hence lisencees are not restricted from using 1.0a content according to section 9. If wizards wanted to try lock down 1.0a content it would have been much simpler to just state "Any wizards content not considered "Licensed Content"? I think the formulation as such clearly seem to define OGC as outside "Unlicensed Content" by virtue of the obvious contrasting of the given example. This might leave some grey areas like tsr era works currently published by wizards, but as there are no OGL currently allowing distribution of such at all, this particular lisence do not need to take a stance in that question. Indeed this is a strong indicator that old OGC is intended to be exactly the relevant exception to "Unlicensed Content", [B]Which seem like a very weird distinction to want to uphold with so many words if wizard has intended to "nullify"/"terminate" or "revoke" 1.0a[/B] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
Top