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
The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License
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: 8866856" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I think you may be exaggerating the effect of section 9 of the OGL v1.0/1.0a.</p><p></p><p>The OGL is a private legal agreement. It is binding only on those who are party to it, in virtue of their agreement to be bound.</p><p></p><p>So:</p><p></p><p>If a publisher (say WotC) publishes a document (say, a SRD) and then makes it available under the OGL 1.0/1.0a (ie they offer to any and all takers to enter into a licence with them on the OGL 1.0/1.0a terms), and others (ie 3rd party publishers) accept that offer on those terms, the offering publisher is bound. This means that WotC is obliged to allow distribution of its existing OGL-released SRD material under future versions of the OGL that it releases (ie "authorized versions" as per section 9).</p><p></p><p>Just sticking to this bit of the analysis, I think that [USER=5636]@estar[/USER] is correct to flag the possibility that OGL 1.1 may not be a "version" of OGL 1.0/1.0a, as it apparently will not permit someone who becomes a party to it to distribute OGC royalty-free. Hence anyone bound by the terms of the OGL 1.1 (as announced to date) cannot comply with sections 2 and 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a. Which seems to me to be sufficient to imply that OGL 1.1 will not be a "version" for section 9 purposes.</p><p></p><p>But anyway, moving on:</p><p></p><p>Suppose that a publisher (eg WotC) publishes a document (eg a revised SRD) and makes it available under OGL 1.1, that new offer is not bound by the terms of the old offer. That offer might, for instance, be an offer to permit use of the revised SRD material under OGL 1.1 terms but not under OGL 1.0/1.0a terms. And the existence of an earlier offer under those earlier terms won't be relevant to the new offer.</p><p></p><p>What seems more relevant than section 9 is the definition, in section 1, of "Derivative Material" and "Use", together with section 4. To explain why I think this:</p><p></p><p>Section 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a permits parties to the licence (licensees) to "Use" the licensed OGC. "Use" is defined to mean (by way of the definition of "Distribute") "reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content". And "Derivative Material" means "means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted".</p><p></p><p>So if the revised SRD is a derivate work, addition to, extension of, or improvement of the existing SRD then the OGL 1.0/1.0a seems to already licence licensees to use the revised SRD. And those licensees have in turn been authorised, by the terms of the OGL 1.0/1.0a, to issue sub-licenses in respect of the OGC they are authorised to use.</p><p></p><p>At this point my ability to analyse comes to an end - and contractual construction is not my main field, so all of the above is put forward tentatively rather than dogmatically. I call on [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] to see if he is able to express a more expert view.</p><p></p><p></p><p>EDITed to correct "licensor" to "licensee" in the last two paras.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8866856, member: 42582"] I think you may be exaggerating the effect of section 9 of the OGL v1.0/1.0a. The OGL is a private legal agreement. It is binding only on those who are party to it, in virtue of their agreement to be bound. So: If a publisher (say WotC) publishes a document (say, a SRD) and then makes it available under the OGL 1.0/1.0a (ie they offer to any and all takers to enter into a licence with them on the OGL 1.0/1.0a terms), and others (ie 3rd party publishers) accept that offer on those terms, the offering publisher is bound. This means that WotC is obliged to allow distribution of its existing OGL-released SRD material under future versions of the OGL that it releases (ie "authorized versions" as per section 9). Just sticking to this bit of the analysis, I think that [USER=5636]@estar[/USER] is correct to flag the possibility that OGL 1.1 may not be a "version" of OGL 1.0/1.0a, as it apparently will not permit someone who becomes a party to it to distribute OGC royalty-free. Hence anyone bound by the terms of the OGL 1.1 (as announced to date) cannot comply with sections 2 and 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a. Which seems to me to be sufficient to imply that OGL 1.1 will not be a "version" for section 9 purposes. But anyway, moving on: Suppose that a publisher (eg WotC) publishes a document (eg a revised SRD) and makes it available under OGL 1.1, that new offer is not bound by the terms of the old offer. That offer might, for instance, be an offer to permit use of the revised SRD material under OGL 1.1 terms but not under OGL 1.0/1.0a terms. And the existence of an earlier offer under those earlier terms won't be relevant to the new offer. What seems more relevant than section 9 is the definition, in section 1, of "Derivative Material" and "Use", together with section 4. To explain why I think this: Section 4 of the OGL 1.0/1.0a permits parties to the licence (licensees) to "Use" the licensed OGC. "Use" is defined to mean (by way of the definition of "Distribute") "reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content". And "Derivative Material" means "means copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other computer languages), potation, modification, correction, addition, extension, upgrade, improvement, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be recast, transformed or adapted". So if the revised SRD is a derivate work, addition to, extension of, or improvement of the existing SRD then the OGL 1.0/1.0a seems to already licence licensees to use the revised SRD. And those licensees have in turn been authorised, by the terms of the OGL 1.0/1.0a, to issue sub-licenses in respect of the OGC they are authorised to use. At this point my ability to analyse comes to an end - and contractual construction is not my main field, so all of the above is put forward tentatively rather than dogmatically. I call on [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] to see if he is able to express a more expert view. EDITed to correct "licensor" to "licensee" in the last two paras. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
The OGL 1.1 is not an Open License
Top