We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!


log in or register to remove this ad


EpicureanDM

Explorer
I still don't know what "de-authorisation" means in this context. Is it meant to be a notion that arises under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a? A general notion from the law of IP licensing? Or something else.

My reading of the OGL v 1.0a is that WotC cannot unilaterally terminate their existing licence with (say) Hypertext SRD. And under section 4 of the OGL, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC that has been licensed to it, provided that the sub-license itself is in the same terms as the OGL v 1.0 (subject to the possibility of choosing other authorised versions as per section 9).

What's the alternative view? I'm not being dismissive, but it would be helpful to actually see it set out.
Also not being dismissive. Just trying to puzzle it out.

I think the missing link in your argument is that "Use" includes the ability to "Distribute", a defined term that contains the word "license". So, to rewrite your sentence a bit, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC - and the ability to Use includes the ability to Distribute, and the ability to Distribute includes the ability to license - that has been license to it. That's arguably a drafting error, excluding the ability to sub-license in list of rights granted by Section 4, but including it in the definition of Distribute. That's classic legal chicanery and I'd be very interested to talk to the lawyers who drafted the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a to see if it was intentional.

EDIT: I don't think that interpretation's a slam dunk. It would have to be tested in court.
 
Last edited:

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
My speculation on the leak. At best it reads as a high level summary of the goals for a new OGL v 1.1 and not the actual legalese that it will be written in. My take is that if it is a true leak they took it from a PowerPoint rather than a drafted legal document.
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
Also not being dismissive. Just trying to puzzle it out.

I think the missing link in your argument is that "Use" includes the ability to "Distribute", a defined term that contains the word "license". So, to rewrite your sentence a bit, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC - and the ability to Use includes the ability to Distribute, and the ability to Distribute includes the ability to license - that has been license to it. That's arguably a drafting error, excluding the ability to sub-license in list of rights granted by Section 4, but including it in the definition of Distribute. That's classic legal chicanery and I'd be very interested to talk to the lawyers who drafted the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a to see if it was intentional.
Or sublicense was included because it's contract law term with specific meaning - which would make the most sense as nowhere else in the OGL does it use or define that term.
 



EpicureanDM

Explorer
Or sublicense was included because it's contract law term with specific meaning - which would make the most sense as nowhere else in the OGL does it use or define that term.
I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative, legally-controlling source they would look to find its "specific meaning."
 

FrogReaver

As long as i get to be the frog
I still don't know what "de-authorisation" means in this context. Is it meant to be a notion that arises under the terms of the OGL v 1.0a? A general notion from the law of IP licensing? Or something else.

My reading of the OGL v 1.0a is that WotC cannot unilaterally terminate their existing licence with (say) Hypertext SRD. And under section 4 of the OGL, Hypertext has the authority to license others to Use the OGC that has been licensed to it, provided that the sub-license itself is in the same terms as the OGL v 1.0 (subject to the possibility of choosing other authorised versions as per section 9).

What's the alternative view? I'm not being dismissive, but it would be helpful to actually see it set out.
Section 9 has the relevant clause - "you may use any authorized version of this Licesne to copy, modify and distrbiute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this license.

I'm with you that I don't see how WOTC can deauthorize OGL 1.0a for existing material (for example if it was deauthorized for SRD 5.1 then it would in effect revoke the whole license, which does seem to go against the terms of the OGL 1.0a license). However, deauthorizing the use of OGL 1.0a for material released under OGL 1.1 would seem potentially doable and would be a statement made so that there is no confusion about whether certain content released under OGL 1.1 could be rereleased by others under OGL 1.0a (the question of whether OGL 1.1 would be legally considered a version of OGL 1.0a at that point might be in contention but outside that I think it would make sense).
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
I'm pretty sure that's now how U.S. contract law works. One of the most amusing things about the OGL is how hard it's trying to fit on a couple of sheets of paper. "Sublicensee" isn't a defined term that the parties to the OGL have agreed upon and I don't know what authoritative, legally-controlling source they would look to find its "specific meaning."
Probably Black's Law Dictionary.
 

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top