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 LIVE! 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: 8891076" data-attributes="member: 7039850"><p>(IANAL) There is one strange thing with the kit Walsh update though. It make it sound like wizards is supposed to be one of the parties of the contract, but I see nothing in the agreement text itself that indicates that. Rather it seem like the formulation indicates the parties to be You and the Contributors. So indeed, if wizards hadnt contributed any OGC, they wouldn't have been a party to the contract at all. Rather the role stipulated for them is more like a steward holding the copyright of the agreement text, and tasked with providing new versions as needed.</p><p></p><p>As wizards is not a priveleged party to the agreement (not really neccessarily a party at all) there are nothing to support that they should have the power to revoke the agreement on behalf of the Contributors under standard revocation theory. Indeed if so had been possible, any contributor seem like should have that right using the same justification.</p><p></p><p>Hence the terms "update" and "authorized" is extremely important for wizards, as that seem like the only things wizards might have special power over. Only wizard my publish a new version. But here come something critical: What Wizards are publishing is only a text, not an offer for an agreement they are party to. Anyone can take any of those published texts, and as long as they are not breaching copyright to do so offer an agreement using this text to someone else. If someone accept this offer, this is a valid contract.</p><p></p><p>This hold true even if the text published by wizards was <em>intended</em> as a draft. However it would appear from the formulation in section 9 (bearing in mind that Ryan state the point of authorized was intended to separate from draft or final), this lisences granted trough this agreement is still considered a version of "this lisence" as long as it was published by wizards, and described itself as such. This due to the asymmetry in the wording that we now can gather allow content that was lisenced under a draft version (by mechanism described above - likely by mistake), can still be "recovered" as it can be copied over to material using the authorized version. While the asymmetry prevents using a draft, even if published by wizards and stating it is an update, to copy material under more favorable terms than the contributors had intended when they accepted to declare their work OGC.</p><p></p><p>Hence it should be obvious that an agreement based on one of the ogl versions (text) published by wizards can be fully valid, binding and meaningfull, even if not "authorized" in the sense used in section 9.</p><p></p><p>The agreement do not describe any mechanism a published version can get the "authorised" state, but I think the implied mechanism (given the now known intention) is that it is any of the entities tasked with producing new versions that are supposed to make that call. Indeed we can imagine a natural process would be that wizards is publishing a proposed text, hence creating a new version of the OGL, (but not authorised). They then gather fredback, and if it seem like it is fine, they wizards can cermonously declare this text to now be an authorised version.</p><p></p><p>If we accept this scrnario as valid, and correct, we hence have at least one situation where wizards are empowered to unilateraly change the state of a legal text from being an unauthorised version of OGL to an authorised version of OGL. This mechanism is not explicitely stated, but I guess it seem reasonable and justified given the intended and implied meaning of section 9?</p><p></p><p>But then we come to our conondrum: a) as wizards are invested the implied power to change the state of a text to become authorized, is it reasonable to also say that wizards has the power to say it is not authorised? Or maybe more to the point now, is it unreasonable that two parts can agree to not considder the text not authorized, given that such an agreement involve just parts giving away rights, rather than claiming rights they are not entitled to?</p><p></p><p>And maybe most importantly: it is clear that whether the text is "authorised" or not is completely irrelevant for the state of any agreements associated with that text. Only consequence might that there might be issues with compliance of agreements relying on section 9 use of OGC as far as I can see?</p><p></p><p>In short: <strong> Even if the steward of the OGL texts declare a previously authorised text no longer authorised, that has no material effect on any agreement already entered using this text.</strong></p><p></p><p>Please explain where I am wrong!</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8891076, member: 7039850"] (IANAL) There is one strange thing with the kit Walsh update though. It make it sound like wizards is supposed to be one of the parties of the contract, but I see nothing in the agreement text itself that indicates that. Rather it seem like the formulation indicates the parties to be You and the Contributors. So indeed, if wizards hadnt contributed any OGC, they wouldn't have been a party to the contract at all. Rather the role stipulated for them is more like a steward holding the copyright of the agreement text, and tasked with providing new versions as needed. As wizards is not a priveleged party to the agreement (not really neccessarily a party at all) there are nothing to support that they should have the power to revoke the agreement on behalf of the Contributors under standard revocation theory. Indeed if so had been possible, any contributor seem like should have that right using the same justification. Hence the terms "update" and "authorized" is extremely important for wizards, as that seem like the only things wizards might have special power over. Only wizard my publish a new version. But here come something critical: What Wizards are publishing is only a text, not an offer for an agreement they are party to. Anyone can take any of those published texts, and as long as they are not breaching copyright to do so offer an agreement using this text to someone else. If someone accept this offer, this is a valid contract. This hold true even if the text published by wizards was [I]intended[/I] as a draft. However it would appear from the formulation in section 9 (bearing in mind that Ryan state the point of authorized was intended to separate from draft or final), this lisences granted trough this agreement is still considered a version of "this lisence" as long as it was published by wizards, and described itself as such. This due to the asymmetry in the wording that we now can gather allow content that was lisenced under a draft version (by mechanism described above - likely by mistake), can still be "recovered" as it can be copied over to material using the authorized version. While the asymmetry prevents using a draft, even if published by wizards and stating it is an update, to copy material under more favorable terms than the contributors had intended when they accepted to declare their work OGC. Hence it should be obvious that an agreement based on one of the ogl versions (text) published by wizards can be fully valid, binding and meaningfull, even if not "authorized" in the sense used in section 9. The agreement do not describe any mechanism a published version can get the "authorised" state, but I think the implied mechanism (given the now known intention) is that it is any of the entities tasked with producing new versions that are supposed to make that call. Indeed we can imagine a natural process would be that wizards is publishing a proposed text, hence creating a new version of the OGL, (but not authorised). They then gather fredback, and if it seem like it is fine, they wizards can cermonously declare this text to now be an authorised version. If we accept this scrnario as valid, and correct, we hence have at least one situation where wizards are empowered to unilateraly change the state of a legal text from being an unauthorised version of OGL to an authorised version of OGL. This mechanism is not explicitely stated, but I guess it seem reasonable and justified given the intended and implied meaning of section 9? But then we come to our conondrum: a) as wizards are invested the implied power to change the state of a text to become authorized, is it reasonable to also say that wizards has the power to say it is not authorised? Or maybe more to the point now, is it unreasonable that two parts can agree to not considder the text not authorized, given that such an agreement involve just parts giving away rights, rather than claiming rights they are not entitled to? And maybe most importantly: it is clear that whether the text is "authorised" or not is completely irrelevant for the state of any agreements associated with that text. Only consequence might that there might be issues with compliance of agreements relying on section 9 use of OGC as far as I can see? In short: [B] Even if the steward of the OGL texts declare a previously authorised text no longer authorised, that has no material effect on any agreement already entered using this text.[/B] Please explain where I am wrong! [/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