Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[S'mon]

In the way you mean it, I think the US is definitely in between England and Bulgaria. I think most British people tend to think of American culture generally as a lot more like ours than it really is. My guess or impression would be that 'culture of legality' level varies across the USA (just as it differs somewhat between England and Scotland, something the English seem to have a lot of trouble believing when I tell them! An Irish student though this year piped up to say she knew just what I meant, since Ireland was quite different from England, too). I'm only really familiar with the culture of the US South, especially Tennessee, but I think most of the rest of the country is also very different from England.

@pemerton
So, bringing this back on topic - given the lower levels of 'culture of legality' in the US, I think it's unsurprising that US based posters here would not see (a) the lack of legal merit in WoTC's argument as being particularly important, compared to (b) WoTC demonstrating that they are untrustworthy, bad faith actors. And then (c) it becomes very important to them that Paizo has established a reputation as a good faith actor (leaving aside some controversies which aren't that relevant).

I think it's not so much that people wrongly think WoTC's argument has legal merit, they just don't think that question matters as much as the question of trust. Personally I'm more with you in that I think it's vital WoTC's attempt to gaslight over OGL 1.0 Section 9 be comprehensively defeated. But I see where they're coming from.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Because they want to sell their product?

I mean, nothing up to now has stopped 3PPs trying to establish new RPG ecosystems around new SRDs licensed under the OGL. But they haven't been doing so, presumably because they think there is no market for them.

Some people seem to think that over the past month or so the market for non-PF, non-D&D-adjacent RPGs has grown tremendously in size. Personally I'm not sure what the evidence for that is.

I don't believe ORC is in any way intended to be exclusively "the Pathfinder license".

 

[pemerton]

The problem that would be addressed is the stewardship problem. That is, with OGL WotC 'owns' the OGL, and as a commercial entity with a certain interest in the business, they are not a neutral party. Through section 9 they retain the right to issue new versions of OGL, which could potentially be ANYTHING AT ALL, and to license your OGC under that new license!

<snip>

why would I EVER use OGL when WotC could simply change its terms at any time?

They could create an OGL with almost any terms whatsoever and then use content under that version, as spelled out in existing versions of the license.

As per my various posts on this upthread, I don't agree. I think there are implicit limits, established by the permissions and powers that are conferred on licensees in relation to OGC, as to what might count as a "version" of the licence.

I don't think my arguments to this conclusion are in any sense knock-down ones. But I do think they express the better view.

They can certainly release new content (and mixed new/old in such a way that it would be almost impossible to separate them) exclusively under a new OGL which lacks an "or any other version" clause.

Agreed. But no new licence can prevent that. No large commercial publisher is going to enter into a contractual promise to all the world to never enter into any other licence agreement in respect of any of its copyrighted works ever in the future.

if I could operate under a license regime which I am entirely confident in the stewardship of, then I will do so in a heartbeat, all things being equal.

I think the current debacle shows that the real issue is not stewardship at all, but rather the fact that everyone wants to publish content that is potentially copyright infringing of the texts owned by a market dominant actor. It is that feature of the market, rather than the legal niceties of who owns copyright in the licence, that is driving things.

 

[Azzy]

I'm talking about Paizo sending everyone a memo, just like WotC has done, asserting that it enjoys legal rights to do <whatever it wants to do> and insisting that everyone else accept that.

Can't Paizo include language in the ORC that specifically surrenders their right to de-authorize existing versions or otherwise pull a WotC in the future.

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton
So, bringing this back on topic - given the lower levels of 'culture of legality' in the US, I think it's unsurprising that US based posters here would not see (a) the lack of legal merit in WoTC's argument as being particularly important, compared to (b) WoTC demonstrating that they are untrustworthy, bad faith actors. And then (c) it becomes very important to them that Paizo has established a reputation as a good faith actor (leaving aside some controversies which aren't that relevant).

I think it's not so much that people wrongly think WoTC's argument has legal merit, they just don't think that question matters as much as the question of trust. Personally I'm more with you in that I think it's vital WoTC's attempt to gaslight over OGL 1.0 Section 9 be comprehensively defeated. But I see where they're coming from.

WotC was once seen as trustworthy too! So I think anyone entering into the new arrangements with Paizo would be wise to keep their eyes open (as @Matt Thomason suggested not far upthread).

Part of what I think is brilliant about Paizo, and also Dancey back in the day, is being able to pitch their commercially rational strategies as a type of community service. I don't think that is easy to pull off, but both have done it.

 

[pemerton]

Can't Paizo include language in the ORC that specifically surrenders their right to de-authorize existing versions or otherwise pull a WotC in the future.

You can put whatever language you like in a licence. It won't matter if no one is prepared to stand on, or enforce, their rights.

I mean, there is no language in the current OGL that permits "de-authorisation", and nor can I see any such power arising by implication, and yet WotC is purporting to "de-authorise"!

 

[S'mon]

WotC was once seen as trustworthy too! So I think anyone entering into the new arrangements with Paizo would be wise to keep their eyes open (as @Matt Thomason suggested not far upthread).

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!

 

[Nikosandros]

I still think that they are trading on the widespread tendency to treat the OGL as if it were a public law-type arrangement (with a legislator who can amend or repeal) rather than a private law one.

I know you already stated this multiple times in the previous days, but it bears repeating, because I see that as a big issue. Most of the comments I'm reading do indeed treat the OGL as a statute instead of an offer of a contract.

 

[Nikosandros]

The Price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance!

You should make it into a bumber sticker!

 

[pemerton]

I know you already stated this multiple times in the previous days, but it bears repeating, because I see that as a big issue. Most of the comments I'm reading do indeed treat the OGL as a statute instead of an offer of a contract.

Spread the (private law) word!