tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post1507839949820145279..comments2024-03-02T10:16:48.839-05:00Comments on Trilemma Adventures: Legally Odd: OGL Section 9Michael Prescotthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04704966067758312492noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-55183428061435766382023-01-01T23:48:26.957-05:002023-01-01T23:48:26.957-05:00Appreciate the legal-ish take on it!Appreciate the legal-ish take on it!Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04704966067758312492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-69706739531311847372023-01-01T04:26:03.829-05:002023-01-01T04:26:03.829-05:00Hinges on the meaning of 'Authorized' in t...Hinges on the meaning of 'Authorized' in that sentence.<br /><br />For the permissive interpretation, the set of authorised version comprises all the ones Wizards has ever made official.<br /><br />For the retroactive one, its the set of authorised versions comprises all the ones Wizards *currently deems* official. <br /><br />But getting any court to even entertain the retroactive interpretation would be a small miracle for wizards:<br /><br />1. They wrote that we 'may', not that we 'shall' or 'must' — so it’s optional. This can be a little ambiguous in plain-english, but is a hard rule in contract drafting.<br /><br />2. Wizards does not clearly indicate that *any* version is currently 'authorised'. If this was what we’d agreed to, how were people supposed to know?<br /><br />3. In effect, the retroactive interpretation means 'Wizards may unilaterally replace this license with another one of its choosing, under any circumstances and without notification'. Which would be an unconscionable contract. <br /><br />4. It's an adhesion contract written by Wizards, so Wizards is at fault for contradictions or ambiguity. So long as the other side’s understanding is reasonable, courts will default to that.<br /><br />***<br /><br />Where I think this’ll go is that SRD 6.0 will explicitly say '1.0 and 1.0a are not authorised versions of the OGL for the purposes of distributing this document', and won’t have Clause 9. <br /><br />Wizards would still be on shaky territory. They’re essentially be relying on the 'shrink-wrap' contract on One D&D content overruling a prior contract. But that’ll be enough ambiguity to get the bigger players to talk to Wizards.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-88848984327491375952022-12-31T00:36:30.572-05:002022-12-31T00:36:30.572-05:00Go and read section 9 carefully. Everyone who has ...Go and read section 9 carefully. Everyone who has released content under the OGL 1.0A has given WOTC permission to grant new rights to their content by releasing new versions of the OGL.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04704966067758312492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-26378055070193489152022-12-30T23:55:43.795-05:002022-12-30T23:55:43.795-05:00That is not going to happen as product identity is...That is not going to happen as product identity is content that is still under traditional copyright. The OGL 1.0a explicitly doesn’t grant ANY rights to the use of product identity. So all the usual copyright provisions still would apply. Retroactive changes will not change that as nobody can create rights to other people’s content. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-25045851494626436592022-12-30T11:20:28.792-05:002022-12-30T11:20:28.792-05:00Ah, but don't forget: that restriction is only...Ah, but don't forget: that restriction is only part of the OGL 1.0A. WOTC could release OGL 1.1, with a clause that specifically allows them to reuse and resell any OGL product identity. They would be able to apply OGL 1.1 provisions to documents previously released under OGL 1.0A, because that's what OGL 1.0A Section 9 says.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04704966067758312492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-57761701614295082512022-12-30T09:25:47.118-05:002022-12-30T09:25:47.118-05:00It is product identity and clearly state it can’t ...It is product identity and clearly state it can’t be used unless there another agreement. Unlike the use of open content. You are just happening to making it another kind of open content under a different license thst is not under Wizard’s control.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-7989889921164085792022-12-30T09:20:34.560-05:002022-12-30T09:20:34.560-05:00That's interesting, although I don't see h...That's interesting, although I don't see how this offers protection. Anything released under the OGL 1.0A can be used under the terms of the OGL 1.1 (whatever those will turn out to be), regardless of whether it has been dual licensed. OGL 1.1 may give WOTC permission to do something new with product identity that it couldn't before, for instance.Michael Prescotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04704966067758312492noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-145649986851420179.post-5397576983146450172022-12-30T09:05:21.949-05:002022-12-30T09:05:21.949-05:00When it comes to your own content there is a hack ...When it comes to your own content there is a hack if you want to spike it’s use for the proposed the OGL 1.1. Just declare all your stuff product identity and then per Section 7 just offer your “product identity” under one of the more rigorously open Creative Commons licenses. <br /><br />In their desire to preserve AD&D “as is” OSRIC does something similar with chapter 4 to 6. It declares those chapters product identity and then offers them under the OSRIC license which allows their use but put in restrictions to prevent variants rule books from being based directly on OSRIC.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com