OGL Hypothetical: I ignore OGL 1.x

pemerton

Legend
Under the OGL, the mention of product identity in open game content doesn't make it not PI.
Under the OGL, OGC and PI are mutually exclusive categories. From the definition section 1(d):

"Open Game Content" means . . . but specifically excludes Product Identity​

Umber hulk is product identity.
Yes. I've made this point in multiple posts.

Umber hulks are also mentioned in the SRD.

Some posters seem to think that all of the SRD is OGC. They are wrong. The SRD itself makes this clear. (For clarity: I am talking about this SRD <https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/SRD-OGL_V1.1.pdf> I haven't looked at them all.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

kjdavies

Adventurer
I think the text of the OGL v 1.1 makes it pretty clear that a party to that agreement accepts a variation to the terms of any prior licence they had with WotC in terms of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, such that that prior licence is no longer valid as between the two parties. This is the meaning, it seems to me, of "is no longer authorized".
You're probably right, that likely is their intent, at least as far as D&Done is concerned. It would suck to sign up for that one and lose the ability to publish based on older SRDs, but that's the licensee's decision whether to accept.

I'm somewhat more concerned about how they appear to be positioning v1.0a with regard to the earlier SRD (and other, non-WotC-SRD) open content. I think they want us to think the other SRDs are no longer allowed, but I question whether than can do that unilaterally. In fact, I think they can't... but they'd be happy for us to think they can and did.
 

S'mon

Legend
I'm somewhat more concerned about how they appear to be positioning v1.0a with regard to the earlier SRD (and other, non-WotC-SRD) open content. I think they want us to think the other SRDs are no longer allowed, but I question whether than can do that unilaterally. In fact, I think they can't... but they'd be happy for us to think they can and did.

I think you are correct!
 

pemerton

Legend
I'm somewhat more concerned about how they appear to be positioning v1.0a with regard to the earlier SRD (and other, non-WotC-SRD) open content. I think they want us to think the other SRDs are no longer allowed, but I question whether than can do that unilaterally. In fact, I think they can't... but they'd be happy for us to think they can and did.
Agreed, except for one point - I don't think they are purporting to do anything in respect of non-WotC SRDs, are they?
 


pemerton

Legend
If they unauthorize the OGL 1.Oa, it is unauthorized for anything released under it, no?
Well, there is no legal power to de-authorise the OGL v 1.0a in my view. So we are asking what are the alleged consequences of the exercise of a claimed-but-probably-non-existent legal power?

Suppose that you and I have a licence agreement between the two of us, expressed in terms of the OGL v 1.0a, which in no way touches on any work in respect of which WotC enjoys copyright. (Eg its Mongoose Traveller stuff. or Evil Hate Fate stuff.) I don't think even WotC claims to have a unilateral power to change the terms of the contractual relationship between the two of us.
 

kjdavies

Adventurer
Agreed, except for one point - I don't think they are purporting to do anything in respect of non-WotC SRDs, are they?
Not that I'm aware, unless they revoke the ability for other publishers to use OGL v1.0a for non-WotC open content (remember, WotC holds the copyright for the license itself).

That aside, I've noticed they are more than a little imprecise about what 'SRD' means... and there are at least four that come to mind as WotC having published: 3e SRD, 3.5 SRD, Modern SRD, and 5 SRD (SRD 5.1, that they appear to be changing the license for).

The only they they have made clear is that SRD 1.2 (now) applies to "SRD 5.1 and later", OGL v1.0a is unauthorized, and older SRDs are not licensed under OGL v1.2.
 

pemerton

Legend
Not that I'm aware, unless they revoke the ability for other publishers to use OGL v1.0a for non-WotC open content (remember, WotC holds the copyright for the license itself).
Owning copyright in the licence as text doesn't give WotC any power to dictate or interfere with the terms of other parties private law agreements. It could make things awkward for those other parties if alleged that their reproduction of the licence under the terms of their various agreements was an infringement of its copyright. I think there is at least a plausible argument that WotC has given implicit permission for that to take place, though. (Eg by actively encouraging other parties to use the OGL for their licensing arrangements.)
 

S'mon

Legend
Owning copyright in the licence as text doesn't give WotC any power to dictate or interfere with the terms of other parties private law agreements. It could make things awkward for those other parties if alleged that their reproduction of the licence under the terms of their various agreements was an infringement of its copyright. I think there is at least a plausible argument that WotC has given implicit permission for that to take place, though. (Eg by actively encouraging other parties to use the OGL for their licensing arrangements.)

I think they made an express statement the OGL was 'released for general use' - maybe via the Open Gaming Foundation?
 


pemerton

Legend
But implicit permission has to be assumed anyway. You can't comply with the license without copying the text.
Your second sentence is true. But on its own, this wouldn't give parties with no connection to WotC permission to use the licence.

I think they made an express statement the OGL was 'released for general use' - maybe via the Open Gaming Foundation?
Yep, I've seen stuff like that. This is why I doubt that they would have a very strong case for copyright infringement against parties using the OGL v 1.0/1.0a to create their own OGC ecosystems.
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top