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
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
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="bmcdaniel" data-source="post: 8906955" data-attributes="member: 1772"><p>Four things strike me immediately:</p><p></p><p>1. As a technical matter, the license is modelled off Creative Commons licenses and is much better drafted and clearer than OGL 1.0a.</p><p></p><p></p><p>2. With respect to the de-authorization of OGL 1.0(a), the license itself is silent. However, there is a separate notice attached to OGL 1.2 which recites:</p><p></p><p>"NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."</p><p></p><p>The placement outside the license can be seen as an admission by WOTC that, at best, it is not clear that they have the authority to de-authorize OGL 1.0(a). In any event, it is severed from the text of OGL 1.2 which means that an adopter of OGL 1.2 is not giving up any rights that they may have to continue to use OGL 1.0(a). It also means that, if litigated and WOTC loses on a claim that they can de-authorize, it would not cause the failure of the OGL 1.2 license.</p><p></p><p>However, the statement regarding de-authorization is regrettably vague. Consider these three questions:</p><p>(a) Publisher wants to re-print in 2024 a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a)</p><p>(b) Publisher wants to re-print with updates in 2024 a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a);</p><p>(c) New publisher wants in 2024 to create and print a book which incorporates materials from a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a).</p><p></p><p>These two statements appear in the draft notice: [x] "you may not use [OGL 1.0(a) to publish SRD content after [the effective date]; and [y] "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content."</p><p></p><p>Statement [x] seems to imply that all 3 scenarios are forbidden, while statement [y] seems to imply that all 3 scenarios are OK. (In particular, all 3 scenarios are OK under OGL 1.0(a) and statement [y] says that content remains licensed under OGL 1.0(a).) However, if either of these extreme positions were the result, it would be absurd. Either the attempted de-authorization has no effect (i.e. all 3 scenarios remain OK) or WOTC's reassurances are misleading, at best.</p><p></p><p></p><p>3. Section 7(b)(i) allows WOTC to terminate OGL 1.2 with a licensee without any notice or opportunity to cure or notice if the licensee challenges WOTC's ownership of intellectual property. This is better than requiring users agree to not bring an action challenging WOTC intellectual property (as in OGL 2). But users of OGL 1.2 that want to challenge WOTC's intellectual property are taking a risk that they will no longer be able to use WOTC material licensed under OGL 1.2.</p><p></p><p></p><p>4. Section 7(b)(i) allows WOTC to terminate OGL 1.2 with a licensee without any notice or opportunity to cure or notice if the licensee's works include material that is "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing," or the licensee "engage</p><p> in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing." WOTC has the "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful," and the licensee agrees not to challenge any determination.</p><p></p><p>Because WOTC determines what is hateful in a manner that cannot be challenged. This effectively makes the license revocable.</p><p>------</p><p>The law, including law relating to contracts and copyright is almost infinitely complex and nuanced. There are exceptions to everything, including things I've said above. If you want to know all the complexity and nuance, don't look in a forum post. The fact that I don't know what exceptions, complexity and nuance are applicable to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that this is not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation and you have entered into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="bmcdaniel, post: 8906955, member: 1772"] Four things strike me immediately: 1. As a technical matter, the license is modelled off Creative Commons licenses and is much better drafted and clearer than OGL 1.0a. 2. With respect to the de-authorization of OGL 1.0(a), the license itself is silent. However, there is a separate notice attached to OGL 1.2 which recites: "NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a. The Open Game License 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. This means that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date). It does not mean that any content previously published under that version needs to update to this license. Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." The placement outside the license can be seen as an admission by WOTC that, at best, it is not clear that they have the authority to de-authorize OGL 1.0(a). In any event, it is severed from the text of OGL 1.2 which means that an adopter of OGL 1.2 is not giving up any rights that they may have to continue to use OGL 1.0(a). It also means that, if litigated and WOTC loses on a claim that they can de-authorize, it would not cause the failure of the OGL 1.2 license. However, the statement regarding de-authorization is regrettably vague. Consider these three questions: (a) Publisher wants to re-print in 2024 a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a) (b) Publisher wants to re-print with updates in 2024 a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a); (c) New publisher wants in 2024 to create and print a book which incorporates materials from a book first published in 2020 which incorporated SRD content under OGL 1.0(a). These two statements appear in the draft notice: [x] "you may not use [OGL 1.0(a) to publish SRD content after [the effective date]; and [y] "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." Statement [x] seems to imply that all 3 scenarios are forbidden, while statement [y] seems to imply that all 3 scenarios are OK. (In particular, all 3 scenarios are OK under OGL 1.0(a) and statement [y] says that content remains licensed under OGL 1.0(a).) However, if either of these extreme positions were the result, it would be absurd. Either the attempted de-authorization has no effect (i.e. all 3 scenarios remain OK) or WOTC's reassurances are misleading, at best. 3. Section 7(b)(i) allows WOTC to terminate OGL 1.2 with a licensee without any notice or opportunity to cure or notice if the licensee challenges WOTC's ownership of intellectual property. This is better than requiring users agree to not bring an action challenging WOTC intellectual property (as in OGL 2). But users of OGL 1.2 that want to challenge WOTC's intellectual property are taking a risk that they will no longer be able to use WOTC material licensed under OGL 1.2. 4. Section 7(b)(i) allows WOTC to terminate OGL 1.2 with a licensee without any notice or opportunity to cure or notice if the licensee's works include material that is "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing," or the licensee "engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing." WOTC has the "sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful," and the licensee agrees not to challenge any determination. Because WOTC determines what is hateful in a manner that cannot be challenged. This effectively makes the license revocable. ------ The law, including law relating to contracts and copyright is almost infinitely complex and nuanced. There are exceptions to everything, including things I've said above. If you want to know all the complexity and nuance, don't look in a forum post. The fact that I don't know what exceptions, complexity and nuance are applicable to your specific situation is one reason (among many) that this is not legal advice. So, I'll say what you hear so many lawyers say. This is not legal advice. I am not your lawyer. You can rely on my legal advice only when we have discussed your specific situation and you have entered into an engagement letter with me or my law firm, and have agreed to pay me or my law firm for the provision of legal advice. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
Top