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
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
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: 8920569" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>This statement is false. The phrase Open Gaming Content has no legal meaning except as part of the language used by parties to a licensing agreement to identify the subject matter of the agreement, as well as the permissions and obligations that arise under the agreement.</p><p></p><p>You are supposing that WotC, by making an offer to license its IP on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0a, therefore changes or burdens in some fashion its rights in respect of its IP. Or to put it more simply, you are treating WotC as a legislator and the OGL as a statute. That is a mistake, and its leading you into confusion and incoherence. The OGL is an element in a private law regime, not a statutory regime.</p><p></p><p>Yes they do.</p><p></p><p>Here's a link: <a href="https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf" target="_blank">https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf</a></p><p></p><p>You can see there that WotC is offering to license certain elements of their SRD to anyone in the world, on the terms set out in the document known as the OGL v 1.0a. When someone takes up that offer, a licence agreement arises between the parties. The terms of that agreement are expressed using a concept "Open Game Content", which serves the function of both picking out those elements of their SRD that WotC are licensing, and of establishing the licensee's permissions and obligations.</p><p></p><p>In the above scenario, WotC are not accepting an offer. They are making one, on certain terms. When another party accepts that offer, they obtain certain rights from and against WotC. The terms of the agreement set out those rights. One of the concepts the agreement uses to set out those rights is "Contributor", which in this context is a label that describes WotC as the owner of the content - which is labelled, pursuant to the agreement, Open Game Content - that is being licensed.</p><p></p><p>You are drawing a contrast between a licence and a licence agreement. But I can't tell what you have in mind.</p><p></p><p>Under the terms of A's contract with WotC, A enjoys a power to sub-license WotC's content to B, and is obliged to offer B that sub-license. That offer is stated in A's licensed work: the statement of the offer is comprised off the OGL text, the section 15 statement, and the notices of OGC and of Product Identity. If B does not want to take up that offer, B can easily decline it: just as one example, I've read Monte Cook's offer to me found in his Arcana Unearthed book, but I have never taken up the offer. Hence I have no licence agreement with Monte Cook. I've never taken up the similar offers I've seen in other 3PP's works either, and so I have no licence agreement with any of them, nor with WotC.</p><p></p><p>You seem to be confusing a particular legally inert document - a set of words, phrases and sentences written out by WotC, copyrighted by them, and labelled "OGL v 1.0a" with two things that are not documents and are not legally inert: offers on certain terms, where those terms might be expressed by (among other things) setting out the text of the OGL; and agreements that arise when those offers are accepted, and which are on the terms set out in the OGL.</p><p></p><p>This would be like confusing (say) a model draft legislation with an actual enactment by a legislature which happens to use the words set out in the model (like my example of the cycling law that I set out in an earlier reply to you).</p><p></p><p>It can be meaningful, for some purposes (eg thinking about remedies for breach) to distinguish the contract parties enter into, from the licence that arises pursuant to that contract. For other purposes (eg in the case of the OGL, understanding termination for breach) there is probably no utility in drawing the distinction.</p><p></p><p>But there is no single <em>the OGL</em> which is a licence, any more than there is a single <em>the OGL</em> which is a contract. Each contract between two parties creates a licence in which one of those parties grants permissions and powers to the other, as well as imposing obligations on them. Paizo's licence to use WotC's IP in certain ways is not the same thing as Monte Cook's licence to do that, even though the two licences might be expressed using the same terms. (Again, this was part of the point of my example, upthread, of cycling laws which might be expressed using the same words but which operate in different jurisdictions.)</p><p></p><p>The most evident manifestation of the distinct character of the two licences is their different section 15 statements.</p><p></p><p>What does "invoking section 4" mean? The OGL, and section of the OGL, is not a spell. Or a god.</p><p></p><p>Section 4 is a statement that contracting parties agree on to express the consideration that flows between them as part of their contract. It states that one - the offeror and licensor - grants a licence (over their works and/or the work of "upstream" parties who have granted the offeror the power to sub-license) and that the other - the acceptor and licensee - agrees to take on the obligations set out in the licence terms as well as accept the powers and permissions that flow from the licence.</p><p></p><p>Those obligations and powers and permissions are all rather technical. Setting them out using more-or-less natural language isn't trivial. So to help them do that, the parties define some terms they can use, and one of them is Open Gaming Content. This terms is used to "pick up" a notice that the offeror has attached to their work, identifying the material they are offering to license, and to explain a number of permissions, powers and obligations.</p><p></p><p>The concept of "contribution" is also used to help explain those permissions, powers and obligations. Because we are talking about copyright licences, potentially arising in relation to multiple works authored by multiple parties, it is helpful to identify the various parties whose works are at issue. The licence terms do this by describing those parties as Contributors.</p><p></p><p>A party does not need to use anyone else's licensed content in order to offer to license their own content - not in general, and not if they want to license their work on terms set out in the document labelled "OGL v 1.0/1.0a". For instance, Mongoose has licensed some of its copyrighted works, that deal with the RPG Traveller, on the terms of the OGL. So, obviously, has WotC!</p><p></p><p>There are core legal concepts that I am unsure that you grasp - offer, acceptance, contract, the difference between a legally inert text (such as a model law, or a model contract found in a book of precedents) and a text which expresses an actually extant legal relationship or state of affairs.</p><p></p><p>If you want to understand how the OGL licensing regime works, I strongly urge you to drop your presumption that WotC is a law maker that has simply "decreed" that certain of its copyright material has some novel legal status called Open Game Content. In the US, only a state legislature or Congress can do that. Read this post, and re-read my earlier replies to you, not with an eye to working out why I'm wrong or confused or not answering your questions, but rather accepting that I am setting out the legal state of affairs as it actually is.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8920569, member: 42582"] This statement is false. The phrase Open Gaming Content has no legal meaning except as part of the language used by parties to a licensing agreement to identify the subject matter of the agreement, as well as the permissions and obligations that arise under the agreement. You are supposing that WotC, by making an offer to license its IP on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0a, therefore changes or burdens in some fashion its rights in respect of its IP. Or to put it more simply, you are treating WotC as a legislator and the OGL as a statute. That is a mistake, and its leading you into confusion and incoherence. The OGL is an element in a private law regime, not a statutory regime. Yes they do. Here's a link: [URL]https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf[/URL] You can see there that WotC is offering to license certain elements of their SRD to anyone in the world, on the terms set out in the document known as the OGL v 1.0a. When someone takes up that offer, a licence agreement arises between the parties. The terms of that agreement are expressed using a concept "Open Game Content", which serves the function of both picking out those elements of their SRD that WotC are licensing, and of establishing the licensee's permissions and obligations. In the above scenario, WotC are not accepting an offer. They are making one, on certain terms. When another party accepts that offer, they obtain certain rights from and against WotC. The terms of the agreement set out those rights. One of the concepts the agreement uses to set out those rights is "Contributor", which in this context is a label that describes WotC as the owner of the content - which is labelled, pursuant to the agreement, Open Game Content - that is being licensed. You are drawing a contrast between a licence and a licence agreement. But I can't tell what you have in mind. Under the terms of A's contract with WotC, A enjoys a power to sub-license WotC's content to B, and is obliged to offer B that sub-license. That offer is stated in A's licensed work: the statement of the offer is comprised off the OGL text, the section 15 statement, and the notices of OGC and of Product Identity. If B does not want to take up that offer, B can easily decline it: just as one example, I've read Monte Cook's offer to me found in his Arcana Unearthed book, but I have never taken up the offer. Hence I have no licence agreement with Monte Cook. I've never taken up the similar offers I've seen in other 3PP's works either, and so I have no licence agreement with any of them, nor with WotC. You seem to be confusing a particular legally inert document - a set of words, phrases and sentences written out by WotC, copyrighted by them, and labelled "OGL v 1.0a" with two things that are not documents and are not legally inert: offers on certain terms, where those terms might be expressed by (among other things) setting out the text of the OGL; and agreements that arise when those offers are accepted, and which are on the terms set out in the OGL. This would be like confusing (say) a model draft legislation with an actual enactment by a legislature which happens to use the words set out in the model (like my example of the cycling law that I set out in an earlier reply to you). It can be meaningful, for some purposes (eg thinking about remedies for breach) to distinguish the contract parties enter into, from the licence that arises pursuant to that contract. For other purposes (eg in the case of the OGL, understanding termination for breach) there is probably no utility in drawing the distinction. But there is no single [i]the OGL[/i] which is a licence, any more than there is a single [i]the OGL[/i] which is a contract. Each contract between two parties creates a licence in which one of those parties grants permissions and powers to the other, as well as imposing obligations on them. Paizo's licence to use WotC's IP in certain ways is not the same thing as Monte Cook's licence to do that, even though the two licences might be expressed using the same terms. (Again, this was part of the point of my example, upthread, of cycling laws which might be expressed using the same words but which operate in different jurisdictions.) The most evident manifestation of the distinct character of the two licences is their different section 15 statements. What does "invoking section 4" mean? The OGL, and section of the OGL, is not a spell. Or a god. Section 4 is a statement that contracting parties agree on to express the consideration that flows between them as part of their contract. It states that one - the offeror and licensor - grants a licence (over their works and/or the work of "upstream" parties who have granted the offeror the power to sub-license) and that the other - the acceptor and licensee - agrees to take on the obligations set out in the licence terms as well as accept the powers and permissions that flow from the licence. Those obligations and powers and permissions are all rather technical. Setting them out using more-or-less natural language isn't trivial. So to help them do that, the parties define some terms they can use, and one of them is Open Gaming Content. This terms is used to "pick up" a notice that the offeror has attached to their work, identifying the material they are offering to license, and to explain a number of permissions, powers and obligations. The concept of "contribution" is also used to help explain those permissions, powers and obligations. Because we are talking about copyright licences, potentially arising in relation to multiple works authored by multiple parties, it is helpful to identify the various parties whose works are at issue. The licence terms do this by describing those parties as Contributors. A party does not need to use anyone else's licensed content in order to offer to license their own content - not in general, and not if they want to license their work on terms set out in the document labelled "OGL v 1.0/1.0a". For instance, Mongoose has licensed some of its copyrighted works, that deal with the RPG Traveller, on the terms of the OGL. So, obviously, has WotC! There are core legal concepts that I am unsure that you grasp - offer, acceptance, contract, the difference between a legally inert text (such as a model law, or a model contract found in a book of precedents) and a text which expresses an actually extant legal relationship or state of affairs. If you want to understand how the OGL licensing regime works, I strongly urge you to drop your presumption that WotC is a law maker that has simply "decreed" that certain of its copyright material has some novel legal status called Open Game Content. In the US, only a state legislature or Congress can do that. Read this post, and re-read my earlier replies to you, not with an eye to working out why I'm wrong or confused or not answering your questions, but rather accepting that I am setting out the legal state of affairs as it actually is. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
Top