Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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="pemerton" data-source="post: 8917039" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I don't know what you mean by "a pool, at least individually".</p><p></p><p>Putting that to one side, section 4 does not create any agreements between non-existent parties, nor any licences over non-existent IP.</p><p></p><p>Under section 4, the offeror/grantor (X) confers a suite of permissions (summed up in the definitions of Use, Distribute and Derivative Material) in relation to the OGC whose use constitutes the accepting party's (Y's) entering into the contract. Note that both X and Y actually exist - a non-existent party can't engage in the conduct set out in section 3 that constitutes acceptance of an offer.</p><p></p><p>Under section 4, the accepting party (Y) agrees to use the OGL, which means that Y comes under duties in relation to other parties' Product Identity and also come under a duty to offer to license their copyrighted work in the same was as the offeror has done. This is an obligation falling on Y, in respect of Y's actual work (ie the work that follows from Y's use of the OGC). If other actual parties (Z) take up that offer in the future (by engaging in the conduct spelled out in section 3), then Z will bring into being a contractual relationship with Y.</p><p></p><p>Y does not agree, at the time of acceptance, to an agreement with Z (who may not even exist at the time of Y's acceptance). Y agrees, at the time of acceptance, to make a standing offer to all the world. No legal relationship with Z comes into being until Z accepts that offer, which requires (among other things) that Z exist.</p><p></p><p>And a more general point: in my experience (which in relation to this topic dates back to 2008), most posters on these boards - and I include you and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] in this category - do not have a firm grasp of, or at least do not clearly articulate, the difference between <em>a present offer, which remains on foot, to enter into a licensing agreement with any party who wishes to take up that offer</em> and <em>a licensing agreement with all the world</em>.</p><p></p><p>For practical purposes, for most of the OGL's history, that difference has not mattered because no party has suggested that they might cease to keep their present offer on foot. But as has now become clear, once one of the parties changes its mind about that then the difference may turn out to have quite a degree of practical importance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8917039, member: 42582"] I don't know what you mean by "a pool, at least individually". Putting that to one side, section 4 does not create any agreements between non-existent parties, nor any licences over non-existent IP. Under section 4, the offeror/grantor (X) confers a suite of permissions (summed up in the definitions of Use, Distribute and Derivative Material) in relation to the OGC whose use constitutes the accepting party's (Y's) entering into the contract. Note that both X and Y actually exist - a non-existent party can't engage in the conduct set out in section 3 that constitutes acceptance of an offer. Under section 4, the accepting party (Y) agrees to use the OGL, which means that Y comes under duties in relation to other parties' Product Identity and also come under a duty to offer to license their copyrighted work in the same was as the offeror has done. This is an obligation falling on Y, in respect of Y's actual work (ie the work that follows from Y's use of the OGC). If other actual parties (Z) take up that offer in the future (by engaging in the conduct spelled out in section 3), then Z will bring into being a contractual relationship with Y. Y does not agree, at the time of acceptance, to an agreement with Z (who may not even exist at the time of Y's acceptance). Y agrees, at the time of acceptance, to make a standing offer to all the world. No legal relationship with Z comes into being until Z accepts that offer, which requires (among other things) that Z exist. And a more general point: in my experience (which in relation to this topic dates back to 2008), most posters on these boards - and I include you and [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] in this category - do not have a firm grasp of, or at least do not clearly articulate, the difference between [i]a present offer, which remains on foot, to enter into a licensing agreement with any party who wishes to take up that offer[/i] and [i]a licensing agreement with all the world[/i]. For practical purposes, for most of the OGL's history, that difference has not mattered because no party has suggested that they might cease to keep their present offer on foot. But as has now become clear, once one of the parties changes its mind about that then the difference may turn out to have quite a degree of practical importance. [/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