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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robconley" data-source="post: 8878630" data-attributes="member: 5636">I made another blog post on Section 9 of the OGL<h3>Section 9 of the Open Game License</h3> There is been a lot of discussion over whether Wizards can revoke the OGL by de-authorizing it. This came about because of Section 9 of the open game license.I highlighted in bold the operative section. The theory goes if Wizards de-authorized the license then everybody who ever used OGL 1.0 or OGL 1.0a will be forced to go to OGL 1.1 even folks who made their stuff open content that had nothing to do with any of Wizard's offerings like the d20 SRD, or the d20 Modern SRD, for example, Cepheus, Mongoose Legends and so on.I am not a lawyer but like any layman, especially one involved in making creative content, I learned enough so I can ask my attorney intelligent questions to make sure what I want to do has all the i's dotted and t's crossed.What I learned is that while the letter of the contract is important, the courts give great weight to intent. Where the parties intending to do to when the license or contract was made. If you google contract law and intent you will find several excellent summaries of what intent means in common law countries like the US.As for the OGL, this means that the old d20 FAQ becomes highly relevant.<a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417e" target="_blank">The D20 FAQ captured on April 29th, 2001</a>While not a legal document it does show the intent of Wizards circa 2001 when they released the OGL.This is further supported by the fact that when Wizards released the highly restrictive Game System License several years later, they did not try to revoke the OGL although they did sunset the d20 Trademark License.Next, is the fact what is meant by an authorized license? Many contend it means that the OGL can be revoked. Or some like myself, argue that it means that the version had to have been authorized by Wizards at some point. The fact that Wizards does not wish to continue offering it for its own stuff is irrelevant to its use for current and future material.I believe my point of view is further supported by how <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/ambiguity" target="_blank">ambiguity</a> is handled in the US Courts. A reasonable person in 2001 and in 2022 would reasonably assume they can use the OGL and any associated open content as long as they met the terms of the license.This is further supported by the references in the d20 FAQ to what the term "Free" means in the context of the OGL.Particularly thisAnd the above is supported by the fact that the d20 page referred to the <a href="https://opengamingfoundation.org/" target="_blank">Open Gaming Foundation</a> which is still in existence and has been recently updated.Section 9 is, in my opinion, is a badly rewritten version of Section 9 of the GNU Public License  Ver 2 (the then current version) which reads.Finally as for Wizards making all open content magically use OGL 1.1 by focusing on authorized licenses. I submit folks are forgetting aboutThat is a choice, if the worst case scenario comes to pass, you can decline to use OGL 1.1 and omit the open content that is not original to your work and then release it other another license or under traditional copyright.I can't say how things will go but I hope this helps as a more hopeful view of the possibilities than some of the other commentary that is out there.UpdateThis was pointed out to me that was in the OGL FAQ as well.This gives weight to my assertion that Section 9 of OGL 1.0a is intended to operate like Section 9 of the GPL rather than a "scrap it" clause.</blockquote>

Verification