Reading 1.1 legalese

[Haplo781]

I completely agree. The "No longer an authorized license" formulation has likely been discussed close to death (though I think my interpretation of it primarly being intended to ensure 1.1 content couldn't be used with 1.0a has been strangely ignored - and I think that interpretation is strengthened as I cannot see any other provisions in this full document that seem to protect against such a transfer, if the formulation "No longer an authorized license" should fall in court upon any of the many arguments against it not being valid from a legal standpoint)

Hence I stated my preference of looking at other things than this particular formulation in this thread, and I hope the posts after your can show that there might still be other questions and confusions around this document that someone might be interested in, beyond that single formulation

"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial."

Any

 

[Jack Daniel]

Fascinating that it defines "SRD-based content" as specific to the 5.1 SRD.

It suggests that those who were speculating that the main motivation here is to prevent a PathFiveter fork and other 5.0 holdout projects are correct.

And it means that anything based on the old 3.0, 3.5, and Modern SRDs — PF1e and C&C and the OSR — are safe (for now), and unrelated games (FATE, Open d6, &al.) using OGL v1.0(a) are even safer.

I'm not quite done holding my breath yet, but I'm a lot less worried for the grognards now than I was yesterday. (Still PO'd over what this could do to the wider industry, of course.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

And it means that anything based on the old 3.0, 3.5, and Modern SRDs — PF1e and C&C and the OSR — are safe (for now), and unrelated games (FATE, Open d6, &al.) using OGL v1.0(a) are even safer.

No, it does not.

Because it also says that's all "Unlicenced content".

"ii. Not Usable D&D Content (“Unlicensed Content”) – This is Dungeons & Dragons content that has been or later will be produced as “official” – that is, released by Wizards of the Coast or any of its predecessors or successors – and is not present in the SRD v. 5.1. Unlicensed Content includes things like the most famous Dungeons & Dragons monsters, characters, magic spells, and things relating to the various settings used in Dungeons & Dragons official content over the years – what the old Open Game License referred to as “Product Identity.” Unlicensed Content is NOT covered by this agreement, and You agree not to use Unlicensed Content unless Your use is specifically authorized by a separate agreement with Us. If You want to include that content in Your work, You must go through the Dungeon Masters Guild or other official channels."

Also, it deauthorizes the OGL 1.0a, and whilst that might not hold up in court, and might even be read as an opt-in, the "comments" text is very clear WotC regard it as a general deauthorization. Which means no-one would be allowed to publish any content based on the OGL, or earlier SRDs.

 

[Greg Benage]

Fascinating that it defines "SRD-based content" as specific to the 5.1 SRD.

It suggests that those who were speculating that the main motivation here is to prevent a PathFiveter fork and other 5.0 holdout projects are correct.

And it means that anything based on the old 3.0, 3.5, and Modern SRDs — PF1e and C&C and the OSR — are safe (for now), and unrelated games (FATE, Open d6, &al.) using OGL v1.0(a) are even safer.

That’s what I thought at first, but the language appears to define any content not in the SRD 5.1 as Unlicensed Content. And any content that is present in 5.1 (e.g. a bunch of PF1) is Licensed Content.

 

[mhd]

Because it also says that's all "Unlicenced content".

They're referring directly to "Product Identity", so are they talking just about < 5.1 PI here or OGC, too?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

there is something someone found that talked about getting around it by starting another company... I wonder if they realize how impossible to track that is.

HeY I start A corp, and hire my brother and best friend as president and vice president.
my brother starts B corp and hires me and my best friend as president and vice president
my best friend starts C corp and hire me and my brother as president and vice president
My wife starts Corp D and hires some writers and artists.

Corp A B and C all contract with COrp D...

I wish I was making this next part up but i saw what I can ONLY call a ponzi scheme (not proven in court) of not for profits stacked that way once.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

They're referring directly to "Product Identity", so are they talking just about < 5.1 PI here or OGC, too?

You'd have to ask them. It's not a well-drafted passage imhnlo. But there's absolutely no concept of OGC in the 1.1 OGL.

there is something someone found that talked about getting around it by starting another company... I wonder if they realize how impossible to track that is.

HeY I start A corp, and hire my brother and best friend as president and vice president.
my brother starts B corp and hires me and my best friend as president and vice president
my best friend starts C corp and hire me and my brother as president and vice president
My wife starts Corp D and hires some writers and artists.

Corp A B and C all contract with COrp D...

I wish I was making this next part up but i saw what I can ONLY call a ponzi scheme (not proven in court) of not for profits stacked that way once.

Now you're just describing how Hollywood works lol.

However see this:

"J. You will not attempt to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way."

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Now you're just describing how Hollywood works lol.

However see this:

"J. You will not attempt to circumvent or go around this agreement in any way."

I can planly say I don't work with Hollywood or in any circles with Hollywood... but yeah, pretty much.

Back when I started my back to school stuff for book keeping and accounting I had a teacher that said "Every company better pay you well. Because I don't know many people who run numbers for any length of time that could not retire to write a tell all 'All the Ways Dumb People Think They Can Hide Money' "

 

[Enrahim2]

Also? AFAIK, we’ve only seen various versions of the FAQ/explainer, and not the actual license/agreement.

There have been links in other threads on this forum. Should probably have included it in the original post: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

"What if I don’t like these terms and don’t agree to the OGL: Commercial? That’s fine – it just means that you cannot earn income from any SRD-based D&D content you create on or after January 13, 2023, and you will need to either operate under the new OGL: NonCommercial or strike a custom direct deal with Wizards of the Coast for your project. But if you want to publish SRD-based content on or after January 13, 2023 and commercialize it, your only option is to agree to the OGL: Commercial."

This passage is from the FAQ, soit is not directly legaly binding it self. However on the "Hello, I am a lawyer..." thread they after a lull of quite general talking started circling around some new formulations. One that was picked up as potentially significant is the entry formulation of the commercial version: "by making commercial use of Licensed Content, You agree to the terms of this agreement." This formulation seem to be an obvious legal backing of the FAQ claim.

Also, it deauthorizes the OGL 1.0a, and whilst that might not hold up in court, and might even be read as an opt-in, the "comments" text is very clear WotC regard it as a general deauthorization. Which means no-one would be allowed to publish any content based on the OGL, or earlier SRDs.

Which comments are you reading? I didn't see any comments at all regarding earlier SRDs, and the only reference i could see to the "old OGL" was a clarification that there is some association between "Licensed Content" and "Open Gaming Content". What did I miss?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

There have been links in other threads on this forum. Should probably have included it in the original post: http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

I saw that and read it- it’s what I was talking about. It’s not the actual license/agreement. I still haven’t seen a copy of the actual (assuredly lengthy) license/agreement.