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
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
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="Matt Thomason" data-source="post: 8908561" data-attributes="member: 6777331"><p>I agree they don't claim it directly. They are however making claims that put together with the text of 1.2 have an uncomfortable level of implication.</p><p></p><p>1) They claim they are deauthorizing 1.0a. They do not specifically state "instances of 1.0a between us and you", but 1.0a as a whole. Their implication, despite me understanding they have no actual power to do so, is that nobody can form any further 1.0a agreements between themselves.</p><p></p><p>2) 1.2 is unsuitable for use as a drop-in for 1.0a if you are licensing multiple works from multiple sources outside of WotC. It does not contain the mechanisms for that unless you are able to use the 1.2 between you and WotC alongside the 1.0a between you and a 3PP. The very text of 1.2 cannot be used to form a workable license where WotC is not the licensor, and we do not have appear to have permission to modify 1.2 in the way we can with 1.0a's Section 15, nor to even change the preamble stating the license is between WotC and $party. 1.2 also does not confer any offer from us to the downstream reader, nor does it grant any sublicensing ability whatsoever. Nor does it provide for identification of Open Game Content and Product Identity.</p><p></p><p>3) If 1.0a is deauthorized between $3PP and ourselves, we therefore need to fall back on the clause in 1.0a allowing the use of any authorized license, but as mentioned in 2) we can't use 1.2 for that purpose without making an extra copy of it and modifying that heavily, which we have not been granted permission to do and which would turn it into a version that is no longer authorized.</p><p></p><p>Now, my view here is that if I want to use 1.2 alongside some Open Game Content by Paizo, and license my own work onwards I need to do the following:</p><p>a) have a 1.2 agreement between WotC and myself for the SRD</p><p>b) have a seperate 1.0a agreement between Paizo and myself for the Paizo OGC.</p><p>c) either include my OGC contribution in b) or add a <em>third</em> license to the mix to allow readers to license my part.</p><p></p><p>While I am confident WotC can legally do nothing about the inclusion of b), in their own words that license is deauthorized. I need to hear clearly from them that they only mean for OGL licenses where they are the licensor, and not those where other parties are the licensor. Currently they seem to be ignoring any request whatsoever for clarification on this, despite it being likely to be the <em>biggest</em> concern of most 3PPs.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Matt Thomason, post: 8908561, member: 6777331"] I agree they don't claim it directly. They are however making claims that put together with the text of 1.2 have an uncomfortable level of implication. 1) They claim they are deauthorizing 1.0a. They do not specifically state "instances of 1.0a between us and you", but 1.0a as a whole. Their implication, despite me understanding they have no actual power to do so, is that nobody can form any further 1.0a agreements between themselves. 2) 1.2 is unsuitable for use as a drop-in for 1.0a if you are licensing multiple works from multiple sources outside of WotC. It does not contain the mechanisms for that unless you are able to use the 1.2 between you and WotC alongside the 1.0a between you and a 3PP. The very text of 1.2 cannot be used to form a workable license where WotC is not the licensor, and we do not have appear to have permission to modify 1.2 in the way we can with 1.0a's Section 15, nor to even change the preamble stating the license is between WotC and $party. 1.2 also does not confer any offer from us to the downstream reader, nor does it grant any sublicensing ability whatsoever. Nor does it provide for identification of Open Game Content and Product Identity. 3) If 1.0a is deauthorized between $3PP and ourselves, we therefore need to fall back on the clause in 1.0a allowing the use of any authorized license, but as mentioned in 2) we can't use 1.2 for that purpose without making an extra copy of it and modifying that heavily, which we have not been granted permission to do and which would turn it into a version that is no longer authorized. Now, my view here is that if I want to use 1.2 alongside some Open Game Content by Paizo, and license my own work onwards I need to do the following: a) have a 1.2 agreement between WotC and myself for the SRD b) have a seperate 1.0a agreement between Paizo and myself for the Paizo OGC. c) either include my OGC contribution in b) or add a [I]third[/I] license to the mix to allow readers to license my part. While I am confident WotC can legally do nothing about the inclusion of b), in their own words that license is deauthorized. I need to hear clearly from them that they only mean for OGL licenses where they are the licensor, and not those where other parties are the licensor. Currently they seem to be ignoring any request whatsoever for clarification on this, despite it being likely to be the [I]biggest[/I] concern of most 3PPs. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
Top