[ORC] Vision for one or more ORC systems: convert the entire OGC archives from the start, using a massive team of converters

[Yaarel]

only to now have one of those posters arguing that the contract is not binding on the other parties to it.

The OGL is binding. But it only binds products that use the OGL and its Open Gaming Content.

There is nothing to bind products that have nothing to do with Hasbro-WotC, nor its Open Gaming Content.

When a product doesnt use the OGL, that is the end of the matter.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

The OGL is binding. But it only binds products that use the OGL and its Open Gaming Content.

There is nothing to bind products that have nothing to do with Hasbro-WotC, nor its Open Gaming Content.

When a product doesnt use the OGL, that is the end of the matter.

It's fascinating watching you in multiple threads arguing with an actual lawyer about the law. I admire your self-confidence, but question your judgement.

 

[mamba]

It's fascinating watching you in multiple threads arguing with an actual lawyer about the law. I admire your self-confidence, but question your judgement.

If this OGL thing has taught me anything, then that you cannot get lawyers to agree on anything, and that one lawyer given one contract can come up with four different ways to interpret it. So some (lawyers and interpretations) are bound to be wrong, that is just unavoidable.

Now whether @pemerton is here, I have no idea, but his interpretation is surprising to me in that I never would have thought of it this way, not that it cannot be read that way

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

If this OGL thing has taught me anything, then that you cannot get lawyers to agree on anything, and that one lawyer given one contract can come up with four different ways to interpret it. So some (lawyers and interpretations) are bound to be wrong, that is just unavoidable.

I suppose. But my point is arguing in an area where you have zero expertise. It's a game where you cannot win. My area of expertise, work-wise, is software engineering: software architecture, software design, that sort of thing. If a non-expert talks to me about this, or tries to contradict me, I entertain them, but it's generally silliness. The points they think they are making, the arguments they are bringing up... they aren't likely even relevant, or meaningful. In conversation, out of politeness, I try to bridge the gap by filling in the bits they are missing or not understanding, but it's tough. Sometimes, there is a legitimate point being made by the layman, for sure. Experts haven't always considered all the things. So I pay attention. But the likelihood that a non-expert has thought of a solution to a problem that the experts in that field have not is beyond vanishingly small. They just don't understand enough about the basics for that to even be realistic.

 

[Yaarel]

But my point is arguing in an area where you have zero expertise.

To be fair, I have expertise in ancient legal texts. These are terse, cryptic, and convoluted. In comparison, the OGL is straightforward and intended for ordinary gamers to understand and comply with.

Modern law is different in some ways. The same need for parsing, understanding technical terms, and logic applies.

Also, the forums are a place for open discussion. This is not a court of law. There is benefit to having diverse points of view reading the same documents from different perspectives.

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

To be fair, I have expertise in ancient legal texts.

That sounds pretty cool. A hobby?

Also, the forums are a place for open discussion. This is not a court of law. There is benefit to having diverse points of view reading the same documents from different perspectives.

Different perspectives are great! But arguing about the nuanced points of a complex field with an expert in that field when you yourself have no expertise in that field... that's the bit that I find unproductive.

 

[pemerton]

The OGL is binding. But it only binds products that use the OGL and its Open Gaming Content.

There is nothing to bind products that have nothing to do with Hasbro-WotC, nor its Open Gaming Content.

When a product doesnt use the OGL, that is the end of the matter.

I repeat: what theory or method of contractual interpretation are you applying? You haven't said. You haven't explained why you think section 7 does not operate with its plain meaning.

 

[pemerton]

Now whether @pemerton is here, I have no idea, but his interpretation is surprising to me in that I never would have thought of it this way, not that it cannot be read that way

Which interpretation?

If you're talking about section 7, all I'm doing is reading the plain words of the first clause:

You - the licensee, as per section 1 - agree not to Use any Product Identity​

Now Use is a defined term. It is defined to mean "use, reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit, otherwise distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate, and otherwise create Derivative Material of, Open Game Content". How does this definition apply to Product Identity? Product Identity is defined so as to "specifically exclude[] the Open Game Content" and so there is a tension in the interpretation of section 7. Maybe someone can trade on that tension to argue for confining the promise in section 7 in some fashion?

But no one has actually set out such an argument.

If this OGL thing has taught me anything, then that you cannot get lawyers to agree on anything

What disagreement have you seen? As @Steel_Wind posted a week or two ago, there has been overwhelming agreement among the legal experts posting about this matter.

 

[pemerton]

There is benefit to having diverse points of view reading the same documents from different perspectives.

You are not actually setting out any readings of the text. For instance, what are you reading in section 7 that confines its operation in the way that you assert?

 

[Ulorian - Agent of Chaos]

You are not actually setting out any readings of the text. For instance, what are you reading in section 7 that confines its operation in the way that you assert?

Hmm... I can't see the quote that's being responded to here. That means the respondee has ignored me I presume?

 

[pemerton]

Hmm... I can't see the quote that's being responded to here. That means the respondee has ignored me I presume?

I'm guessing so!

 

[mamba]

Which interpretation?

If you're talking about section 7, all I'm doing is reading the plain words of the first clause:

You - the licensee, as per section 1 - agree not to Use any Product Identity

yes this, that it binds the person to these restrictions outside the context of the document they are publishing under the OGL.

I am not saying you are reading it wrong, it’s just not something I would have even considered a possibility.

 

[Yaarel]

If you're talking about section 7, all I'm doing is reading the plain words of the first clause:

Lets start with the plain meaning of Section 7. An earlier post emphasizes the first two sentences, and a contrast between them.

I am using this source, as convenient reference: opengamingfoundation .org/ogl.html



First sentence.

"
7. Use of Product Identity:

You agree not to Use any Product Identity,
including as an indication as to compatibility,
except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.

"

Of relevance here, "You agree to not use any Product Identity."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and a new ORE (Open RPG Engine), "you" are not using any Hasbro-WotC Product Identity.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.



Second sentence.

"
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.

"

Of relevance here, "You agree not to indicate compatibality ... with any Trademark ... in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and the ORE, "your" product does not contain Open Game Content.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.



To abandon the OGL and its Open Gaming Content, is the end of the matter.

 

[mamba]

Of relevance here, "You agree to not use any Product Identity."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and a new ORE (Open RPG Engine), "you" are not using any Hasbro-WotC Product Identity.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.

no it doesn't, it releases you of the requirement not to use any WotC Product Identiy (not that this means you actually now can, it just no longer violates your license agreement...).

If you release an adventure under ORC and then use a Beholder in the adventure, then you are using WotC's product identity, and you do so in a way the OGL would not have allowed.

Second sentence.

"You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

Of relevance here, "You agree not to indicate compatibality ... with any Trademark ... in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and the ORE, "your" product does not contain Open Game Content.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.

no it doesn't, see above, only now you print on your adventure 'Compatible with D&D(tm)', something the OGL would again not have allowed

To abandon the OGL and its Open Gaming Content, is the end of the matter.

maybe, but not for the reasons you are giving

 

[Yaarel]

it just no longer violates your license agreement

Thats the point.

Suppose the OGL prevented the person oneself from using Product Identity, rather than preventing the product itself from doing so. The person still never violates the OGL, because the ORC product never uses the Open Gaming Content of the OGL.

If you release an adventure under ORC and then use a Beholder in the adventure, then you are using WotC's product identity, and you do so in a way the OGL would not have allowed.

If you release an adventure under ORC, then you never agreed to the OGL. You never committed yourself to the terms of the OGL. Your product has nothing to do with the OGL.

If your product uses a "Beholder", then the product violates normal copyright laws.

 

[mamba]

Thats the point.

[...]

If your product uses a "Beholder", then the product violates normal copyright laws.

I get that this is how it works, but doesn't that basically avoid the whole scenario we were discussing? For that you need to first have something published under OGL, and then the question becomes whether that only imposed the limitations on that one product, or on you across products. If you bypass the first step, you never entered into the agreement that is being discussed.

If all you wanted to say is that the ORC license allows you to never use the OGL (as does the CC btw), then you used a lot of words for that, but I agree

 

[pemerton]

yes this, that it binds the person to these restrictions outside the context of the document they are publishing under the OGL.

I am not saying you are reading it wrong, it’s just not something I would have even considered a possibility.

That's interesting, but a bit surprising given the words of the licence.

 

[pemerton]

If the OGL is binding then it's binding. If it's irrevocable than it's irrevocable. Parties to it have obtained a royalty free licence that WotC cannot revoke. In exchange they've made their section 7 promises to WotC.

As I've posted above, the proper construction of section 7 is not entirely straightforward, because of its use of the defined term "Use". But a party to the OGL doesn't avoid their section 7 obligation by no longer publishing under the OGL. The OGL doesn't require continuing to publish under it in order to keep it on foot.

 

[Enrahim2]

Lets start with the plain meaning of Section 7. An earlier post emphasizes the first two sentences, and a contrast between them.

I am using this source, as convenient reference: opengamingfoundation .org/ogl.html



First sentence.

"
7. Use of Product Identity:

You agree not to Use any Product Identity,
including as an indication as to compatibility,
except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement
with the owner of each element of that Product Identity.

"

Of relevance here, "You agree to not use any Product Identity."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and a new ORE (Open RPG Engine), "you" are not using any Hasbro-WotC Product Identity.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.



Second sentence.

"
You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark.

"

Of relevance here, "You agree not to indicate compatibality ... with any Trademark ... in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content."

By updating "your" product to use the ORC and the ORE, "your" product does not contain Open Game Content.

Switching to the ORC satisfies the stipulation.



To abandon the OGL and its Open Gaming Content, is the end of the matter.

Actually, doesn't this break down actually counter your argument? The second sentence explicitly refers to work containing OGC, while the first sentence do not?

It would hence seem that if you have at any point entered an ogl contract, using anything you in that contract agreed to regard as PI independent of context would constitute breach of the contract.

The reasoning for sentence 1 not being relevant hence do not strike me as strongly founded. If anything I would rather reason that if you switch your entire portfolio to ORC (hence no longer using any ogc via the OGL license), then it might rather be a question if that breach is having any practical implications? (Immediate effect seem to be that the contract terminates automatically if made aware, and I couldn't see any clause suggesting section 7 would survive termination. Hence the state seem similar to if you never accepted the ogl in the first place) But I am not a lawyer, and I woildnt be surprised if there are more subtelties than this in contract law regarding effects of such breaches.

I can add that I think such an outside your work interpretation of PI actually make sense given the context and intention around the introduction of the OGL. It appear to have been a private attempt at privately clarifying the important boundaries very murky copyright law for the rpg domain. In this light OGC is sort of intended as declaring what material you consider not "copyrightable", and in order for the licensor to conclude this, the lisensee need to assert in return that they will treat everything declared as PI to be fully "copyrightable" (with stronger protections than the laws alone provide).

 

[Yaarel]

Actually, doesn't this break down actually counter your argument? The second sentence explicitly refers to work containing OGC, while the first sentence do not?

It would hence seem that if you have at any point entered an ogl contract, using anything you in that contract agreed to regard as PI independent of context would constitute breach of the contract.

The strength of what I am saying relies on: the existence of a new ORE ("Open RPG Engine") for the game rules.

By using this new ORE − instead of the OGL Open Game Content − one avoids having entanglement with the OGL contract.



This ORE isnt a "potation" − it isnt a translation of Hasbro-WotC intellectual property from one form to an other form. Rather, the ORE presents a game rules system − and there is no Hasbro-WotC intellectual property. It has no connection to Hasbro-WotC.



These designers who design the ORE, never use the OGL. They never enter the OGL contract. They never have an obligation to meet OGL requirements.

The legal merit of the ORE rests on normal copyright laws.

Immediate effect seem to be that the contract terminates automatically if made aware

Just to be clear. Any product that has the OGL remains in place.

The one who has rights to that product can choose to make a different version of the product for the ORE system and using the ORC license. Then two versions of the same product exist. One integrates Hasbro-WotC intellectual property, and one has nothing to do with Hasbro-WotC.

I can add that I think such an outside your work interpretation of PI actually make sense given the context and intention around the introduction of the OGL. It appear to have been a private attempt at privately clarifying the important boundaries very murky copyright law for the rpg domain. In this light OGC is sort of intended as declaring what material you consider not "copyrightable", and in order for the licensor to conclude this, the lisensee need to assert in return that they will treat everything declared as PI to be fully "copyrightable" (with stronger protections than the laws alone provide).

Yeah.