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
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: 8906552" data-attributes="member: 7039850"><p>Great breakdown!</p><p></p><p>There is one thing that still puzzles me with this argument though. Let us say that A offers a license to B having the form of 1.0a. If B accepts, we have an existing licence contract between A and B having the 1.0a. From my understanding part of the contract is that B has to offer a sub licence to any derivative work, and that offer has to be of the 1.0a form.</p><p></p><p>Now there are two licence offers: One from A and one from B. We also have an existing contract. You seem to argue that A can always retract their licence offer, which I think is a sound argument. Further you argue that the existing contract will survive, that appear to be the general agreement likely is the case. If I understand you correctly what you are further investigating is the rights provided under this existing contract.</p><p></p><p>What I am however miss is a mention of what happen with the offer from B? While it seem reasonable that A can retract their offer, it is not clear to me how they can retract or modify the offer from B? For instance it seem like B has the right to extend the licence offer, as all the material that isnt their is licenced under an active existing licence that is explicitely alows for (sub)licensing of the licenced material (ref 1(c) Distribute used in 1(g) Use).</p><p></p><p>From my understanding it is this offer from B that is the main veichle that could allow production of further new derivative works. And moreover it is my understanding that the grant described i section 4 of the offer presented by B would be sufficient for a party C to publish such new derivative work as long as they accept B's offer. As such I fail to see how section 9 would be relevant at all, as long as C is happy with a licence "with the exact terms of this License"?</p><p></p><p>But maybe this is where I misread. I have taken the "with the exact terms of this license" to mean that in order to get the rights under that grant, you have to comply with the terms of the FORM of the offered licence (in this case 1.0a), contrasted to the more general grant offered for use under any <em>authorised</em> OGL in section 9. Is there a different understanding of the phrase "with the exact terms of this license", that mean section 9 is needed for C to make use of the offer from B? In that case I can understand why it might not be needed to say more about the offer from B.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8906552, member: 7039850"] Great breakdown! There is one thing that still puzzles me with this argument though. Let us say that A offers a license to B having the form of 1.0a. If B accepts, we have an existing licence contract between A and B having the 1.0a. From my understanding part of the contract is that B has to offer a sub licence to any derivative work, and that offer has to be of the 1.0a form. Now there are two licence offers: One from A and one from B. We also have an existing contract. You seem to argue that A can always retract their licence offer, which I think is a sound argument. Further you argue that the existing contract will survive, that appear to be the general agreement likely is the case. If I understand you correctly what you are further investigating is the rights provided under this existing contract. What I am however miss is a mention of what happen with the offer from B? While it seem reasonable that A can retract their offer, it is not clear to me how they can retract or modify the offer from B? For instance it seem like B has the right to extend the licence offer, as all the material that isnt their is licenced under an active existing licence that is explicitely alows for (sub)licensing of the licenced material (ref 1(c) Distribute used in 1(g) Use). From my understanding it is this offer from B that is the main veichle that could allow production of further new derivative works. And moreover it is my understanding that the grant described i section 4 of the offer presented by B would be sufficient for a party C to publish such new derivative work as long as they accept B's offer. As such I fail to see how section 9 would be relevant at all, as long as C is happy with a licence "with the exact terms of this License"? But maybe this is where I misread. I have taken the "with the exact terms of this license" to mean that in order to get the rights under that grant, you have to comply with the terms of the FORM of the offered licence (in this case 1.0a), contrasted to the more general grant offered for use under any [I]authorised[/I] OGL in section 9. Is there a different understanding of the phrase "with the exact terms of this license", that mean section 9 is needed for C to make use of the offer from B? In that case I can understand why it might not be needed to say more about the offer from 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