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
My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft
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: 8912765" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>The purpose of section 2 is to identify the elements/components of a work which are the subject matter of the offer set out in section 3, and are the subject matter of the grant of licence set out in section 4. Whether those two subject matters are the same or not is the question I address in the post that you quoted.</p><p></p><p>It's clear that you don't need to use <em>all</em> of the offered OGC in order to accept the licence. But as per my post, there is a question as to whether or not the subject matter of the grant of licence is confined to the OGC that is used, or rather encompasses all the OGC in the work that is the subject-matter of the offer.</p><p></p><p>I don't understand what your problem is. The use of OGC, with the intention to enter into the contract in virtue of that use, is key to acceptance.</p><p></p><p>I think by "5" you mean "4".</p><p></p><p>Given that each contributor is the one with authority to license their OGC (in virtue of their copyright in it, or authority in respect of that copyright: see section 5), as well as to sub-license others' OGC (as per the meaning of "Use" and "Distributed"), it seems pretty clear to me that your second - distributed - reading is the correct one. For instance, if publisher A enters into the license with WotC and publishes a work that contains WotC's OGC X as well as A's OGC Y, and then B does likewise and publishes a work that contains X and also their own OGC Z, and then C goes on to publish a work that likewise contains X and Z, C must name WotC and B in their section 15 statement. They are licensed in respect of two Contributors - WotC and B. But they have no contract with, and no licence from, A.</p><p></p><p>As per my previous paragraph, this is how the OGL works. It is intended to build up a network of interrelated contracts between publishers/contributors, based on one another's use of each other's OGC.</p><p></p><p>Continuing with my example, let's suppose that C publishes a work that contains not only WotC's OGC X and B's OGC Z, but also C's own OGC Q.</p><p></p><p>If A wishes to publish a work containing Q (or material derived from Q) they must enter into a licence agreement with C. They do this by (i) using Q and (ii) including C in their section 15 statement.</p><p></p><p>There is no power that I can see for any party to withdraw any license that they enter into.</p><p></p><p>WotC has the power to withdraw its offer. In my post to which you replied, I suggested various ways that might affect the subject matter of the licence that WotC has granted. Other contributors are contractually obliged to keep their offers on foot (as per sections 2 and 4).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8912765, member: 42582"] The purpose of section 2 is to identify the elements/components of a work which are the subject matter of the offer set out in section 3, and are the subject matter of the grant of licence set out in section 4. Whether those two subject matters are the same or not is the question I address in the post that you quoted. It's clear that you don't need to use [i]all[/i] of the offered OGC in order to accept the licence. But as per my post, there is a question as to whether or not the subject matter of the grant of licence is confined to the OGC that is used, or rather encompasses all the OGC in the work that is the subject-matter of the offer. I don't understand what your problem is. The use of OGC, with the intention to enter into the contract in virtue of that use, is key to acceptance. I think by "5" you mean "4". Given that each contributor is the one with authority to license their OGC (in virtue of their copyright in it, or authority in respect of that copyright: see section 5), as well as to sub-license others' OGC (as per the meaning of "Use" and "Distributed"), it seems pretty clear to me that your second - distributed - reading is the correct one. For instance, if publisher A enters into the license with WotC and publishes a work that contains WotC's OGC X as well as A's OGC Y, and then B does likewise and publishes a work that contains X and also their own OGC Z, and then C goes on to publish a work that likewise contains X and Z, C must name WotC and B in their section 15 statement. They are licensed in respect of two Contributors - WotC and B. But they have no contract with, and no licence from, A. As per my previous paragraph, this is how the OGL works. It is intended to build up a network of interrelated contracts between publishers/contributors, based on one another's use of each other's OGC. Continuing with my example, let's suppose that C publishes a work that contains not only WotC's OGC X and B's OGC Z, but also C's own OGC Q. If A wishes to publish a work containing Q (or material derived from Q) they must enter into a licence agreement with C. They do this by (i) using Q and (ii) including C in their section 15 statement. There is no power that I can see for any party to withdraw any license that they enter into. WotC has the power to withdraw its offer. In my post to which you replied, I suggested various ways that might affect the subject matter of the licence that WotC has granted. Other contributors are contractually obliged to keep their offers on foot (as per sections 2 and 4). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft
Top