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
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!
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="EpicureanDM" data-source="post: 8877929" data-attributes="member: 6996003"><p>From the reddit thread:</p><p></p><p>Unlike the other credible legal analysis I've seen, I'm not as confident with this bit. OGL 1.0a licensees are exactly that: licensees, not <em>sub-</em>licensees. The word "sublicensees" doesn't appear anywhere else in the OGL 1.0a except Section 13, which reads:</p><p></p><p>That's it. Section 13's only contemplating termination due to a licensee's (not a sublicensee's) failure to comply with the OGL. I don't see a provision in the OGL 1.0a that grants licensees the right to sublicense. It would be in Section 4, where you find the bundle of rights given to licensees: perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive. So how are these theoretical sublicensees mentioned in Section 13 (and <em>only</em> Section 13) being generated and by whom? Note that in the supposedly leaked text of the OGL 1.1, WotC does explicitly give itself the right to sublicense. Regardless of your position on the overall professionalism of the supposedly leaked text, that second section that describes WotC's IP rights <em>does</em> sound like proper legalese. I would expect that word - "sub-licensable" - to be in Section 4 of OGL 1.0a if the licensee has that right.</p><p></p><p>A lot of effort went into making OGL 1.0a fit onto a single piece of paper, so I imagine a lot of eyes spent a lot of time boiling it down to what they thought were the absolute essentials. So that solitary reference in Section 13 to sublicenses suggests that it was included for some reason. Courts assume that all the language included in an agreement was included on purpose, so there's a presumption that WotC had <em>something</em> in mind when they included this sentence. But it's also true that people make mistakes. Language supporting this sentence in Section 13 might have been removed and some lawyer didn't think through the ramifications, leaving that orphaned sentence in there.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="EpicureanDM, post: 8877929, member: 6996003"] From the reddit thread: Unlike the other credible legal analysis I've seen, I'm not as confident with this bit. OGL 1.0a licensees are exactly that: licensees, not [I]sub-[/I]licensees. The word "sublicensees" doesn't appear anywhere else in the OGL 1.0a except Section 13, which reads: That's it. Section 13's only contemplating termination due to a licensee's (not a sublicensee's) failure to comply with the OGL. I don't see a provision in the OGL 1.0a that grants licensees the right to sublicense. It would be in Section 4, where you find the bundle of rights given to licensees: perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive. So how are these theoretical sublicensees mentioned in Section 13 (and [I]only[/I] Section 13) being generated and by whom? Note that in the supposedly leaked text of the OGL 1.1, WotC does explicitly give itself the right to sublicense. Regardless of your position on the overall professionalism of the supposedly leaked text, that second section that describes WotC's IP rights [I]does[/I] sound like proper legalese. I would expect that word - "sub-licensable" - to be in Section 4 of OGL 1.0a if the licensee has that right. A lot of effort went into making OGL 1.0a fit onto a single piece of paper, so I imagine a lot of eyes spent a lot of time boiling it down to what they thought were the absolute essentials. So that solitary reference in Section 13 to sublicenses suggests that it was included for some reason. Courts assume that all the language included in an agreement was included on purpose, so there's a presumption that WotC had [I]something[/I] in mind when they included this sentence. But it's also true that people make mistakes. Language supporting this sentence in Section 13 might have been removed and some lawyer didn't think through the ramifications, leaving that orphaned sentence in there. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
We got an official leak of One D&D OGL 1.1! Watch Our Discussion And Reactions!
Top