Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Could you clarify this point?
OGL 1.1... quote the lawyers (and link)
Here is the text of section 13 of the OGL v 1.0a:
Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
This is the only provision in the OGL that deals expressly with the issue of termination. But it does not say that it is the sole basis for termination/revocation. The letter sent on behalf of Sad Fishe says that
Section 13 sets forth the sole condition of termination of the license . . . Outside of what is given, Wizards has no authority to terminate the license, both with respect to prior published content and future published content under the license.
That claim rests on the premise that the specification of one mode of termination, and the failure to specify any others. confines the power of termination to that which has been specified. This is what I mean by identifying an implication based on construction/interpretation of the instrument as a whole.
The Sad Fishe claim also leans heavily on the statement about survival of sublicenses. (At least, that seems to me to be the basis for the claim about future published content.)
As I said, I don't think these claims are hopeless, but nor do I think they are certain. bmcdaniel, who clearly is more of an expert than me, says the status of sub-licensees following WotC's revocation of its standing offer is not clear. I'm not going to contradict that!
Nikosandros
Golden Procrastinator
Thanks. Turns out that I'm dumb because I had misinterpreted which letter you were talking about, but thanks in any case for the extra clarifications.
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
One point which has been raised here is the possibility that those who've published material under the OGL v1.0a to date might be able to continue doing so after WotC tries to revoke the license on January 13th of this year. As a point of clarification, is that the case for individuals who've published Open Game Content (i.e. can point to a Section 15 copyright listing that names them specifically as an author), or is that only the case for publishers (most of which are business entities)?
I don't know on what basis you are distinguishing "individuals" from "publishers". By "individuals" do you mean natural persons? But nothing stops an individual from being a publisher.
Rights under the OGL v 1.0a are enjoyed by the party to the licence - as per section 1, '"You" or "Your" means the licensee in terms of this agreement.' As per section 3, you become a party to the licence by using the OGC - where "Using" it itself a defined term. If you Used the OGC but didn't conform to the requirements of the OGL (which section 4 requires that you do) then you are in breach and hence subject to section 13 termination.
I wouldn't be surprised if there are some, perhaps many, parties to the agreement who haven't conformed and hence are in breach. And I would expect wonky section 15 declarations to be one area where that non-conformity manifests itself.
Orius
Legend
If lawyers agreed on anything, it'd probably make it harder to charge by the hour!
Burt Baccara
Explorer
Not quotes from lawyers, but relevant:
U.S. Copyright Office's factsheet fl-108 on Games.
DaVinci Editrice S.R.L. v. ZiKo Games, LLC: case law from a tabletop card game with some similarities to an RPG, showing once again that a system (collection of mechanics) can't be copyrighted, and that common terms for abilities (another mechanic) and interactions of characters (classes here) and abilities are part of the system and not expressions.
U.S. Copyright Office's factsheet fl-108 on Games.
DaVinci Editrice S.R.L. v. ZiKo Games, LLC: case law from a tabletop card game with some similarities to an RPG, showing once again that a system (collection of mechanics) can't be copyrighted, and that common terms for abilities (another mechanic) and interactions of characters (classes here) and abilities are part of the system and not expressions.
I just read the case, following your link in the other thread. The part of your post I've bolded was confined to the context of that case: they were stock characters and stock abilities. The case didn't overturn or question the soundness of the Streetfighter case that held otherwise in respect of certain imaginative special abilities.
Burt Baccara
Explorer
Thanks for the clarification.
Burt Baccara
Explorer
Also not quotes from lawyers, but may be helpful.
BTW, what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a besides the version are small changes in section 7 changing two instances of "Trademark" to "Trademark or Registered Trademark."
- OPEN GAME LICENSE (Simplified), Version .02 this is a draft, show to distinguish what an unauthorized draft versus an authorized version means.
- OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0 includes an FAQ, might be the same as the one later found on the Wizards.com site.
- OPEN GAME LICENSE Version 1.0a same FAQ as above.
BTW, what is the difference between 1.0 and 1.0a besides the version are small changes in section 7 changing two instances of "Trademark" to "Trademark or Registered Trademark."
Similar Threads
