Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8867695" data-attributes="member: 42582">My only point of disagreement with your first two sentences is that WotC could retract their offer to license the 5e SRD under the OGL v 1.0a. That would mean that any future person wanting to distribute OGC derived from the 5e SRD would need to do so via some other publisher who is already party to the OGL with WotC. Because that is not a very high hurdle to get over, in practical terms I think WotC has no reason to retract their offer.You have misread my post, which did not use the word "only". [USER=6795602]@FrogReaver[/USER] seemed to be suggesting that the only way to bring material from the existing SRD(s) under the OGL v 1.1 would be by ending the existing, perpetual, royalty-free licenses. I was disagreeing with that. (And of course it's always possible that I misinterpreted FrogReaver in the first place.)In other words, as I said in my post, it may be that two publisher ecosystems are created, but they would likely be overlapping in the OGC that they contain.And I am taking it as given that there will be material that WotC licenses via the OGL v 1.1 that is not currently licensed under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a. What that volume of "stuff" would be I don't know.Bob, through OGL v 1.0/1.0a, also obliges any future party to distribute all OGC royalty-free. But a party to the mooted OGL v 1.1 is violating that obligation. Of course that person (Jane) could surrender their royalty claims, but they can't surrender WotC's royalty claims. So it seems to me they can't pass on the rights to further parties that Bob, via the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, has obliged them to.Who would have what remedy (gains-based damages, termination of the contract, etc) is a further question.I haven't seen the text of the OGL v 1.1. But I thought the press release said that publishers of OGC derived from the revised SRD will owe royalties (conditional on a certain revenue) to WotC. I assume it will be drafted so that if Jane distributes OGC that has been licensed to her under the licence, she imposes the same obligation on the sub-licensees. To me, that does not seem consistent with Jane's obligation under the OGL v 1.0/1.0a to distribute OGC royalty-free. That latter obligation is not confined to her own contributions to the OGC, at least on my reading of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a.I think we can be pretty confident that WotC's lawyers don't need to read ENworld for their advice and analysis!I still don't see how WotC, in making a new offer of a licence to use their revised SRD under certain terms, can be bound by section 9 of an old offer.But are you able to tell us anything sensible about the ways in which a revised SRD might be derivative of the existing SRD, and hence be already licensed under the existing OGL? That's what I'm curious about, but don't know enough to work out for myself.</blockquote>

Verification