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

[pemerton]

Whether you can include the word Owlbear - as in "2 owlbears live here" - is iffier. I think you probably can, but it's not 100% guaranteed a judge would agree. Safer not to include any unique D&D monsters.

I've been playing Torchbearer recently. That system (which is classic D&D and OSR-inspired, but is not licensed by WotC) has owlbears, but calls its stirges stryxes. I'm curious as to the basis on which they made the different call for one but not the other.

 

[S'mon]

I've been playing Torchbearer recently. That system (which is classic D&D and OSR-inspired, but is not licensed by WotC) has owlbears, but calls its stirges stryxes. I'm curious as to the basis on which they made the different call for one but not the other.

Well since the owlbear was based off a Japanese toy and is just an owl + bear, you could argue it's not copyright protected, but that stirges have more creativity, enough for copyright. It's an argument.

I'm still getting used to the idea that a monster per se can be a copyright work in the UK. It was only June 2022 that we had the first similar case ever - Shazam v Only Fools held that a fictional character was itself a copyright protected literary work. It's pretty well established in the USA though.

 

[Cadence]

Will you insist that those non-d20 games have as permissive a licenses as an OGL? Boycotting WotC for attempting to revoke their open license and instead patronizing a company that doesn't offer an open license, seems a bit hypocritical, or at least counter-productive.

E.g., Gamesworkshop has a bit of a nasty reputation from what I've read, so going to WFRPG seems like a poor choice if I'm leaving WotC because it is no longer supporting open content.

So which publishers offer open gaming licenses that are not wrapped up in the WotC OGL mess? Seems like it would be more effective to say "if you support open gaming, then support these companies" rather than "F!@% WotC, I'm never buying from them again. I'll play other games."

For me, I'm ok-ish with WotC wanting to have a new OGL for "5.5" that is more restrictive, and limiting some of there electronic things to only 5.5 (and vice-versa). Not my favorite, but I get the business need. Similarly I am great with other companies that don't have an OL. [Granted it makes me less likely to buy them].

I am emphatically not ok with an attempt to wall off the existing 1.0a products from Paizo, Pelgrane, EN, etc... from further development unless it is under a 1.1 or whatnot.

 

[Remathilis]

that is perfectly fine. I just want to make sure it is an informed decision, because I have worked with companies that buy up there own secondary market but not all of it, so they can raise scarcity and as such raise the price and make the price of working for them look better.

This is inadvertently the best argument I've seen for pirating WotC's material.

 

[malakia]

For self-publishing (as a 3PP), would it be worth putting essentially blank placeholder pdfs up on drivethru, of adventures you intend to release sometime in the future, dated for copyright before the OGL deadline? OGL 1.0a text included in them already.
And then subsequently "filling-in" all or part of the adventure, later?

 

[mamba]

This is inadvertently the best argument I've seen for pirating WotC's material.

if you are ok with PDFs you can get a lot easily and cheaply (not talking about the pirating part here, but that obviously is true too )

 

[Remathilis]

if you are ok with PDFs you can get a lot easily and cheaply (not talking about the pirating part here, but that obviously is true too )

I'm just saying that if the second hand market drives scarcity and thus a desire for low cost official alternatives, then freely distributed versions that undercut both would appear to be the solution.

I'm sure there are a whole bunch of ethics lawyers with steam coming out of their ears right now, but if the goal is to starve the beast so thoroughly that they can't even absorb minor benefits from secondary sales, then piracy could be an acceptable method of acquisition.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

I see people saying that "perpetual" is ambiguous or depends on the context. This is not the case in American licensing law; "perpetual" has a very specific, standard, boilerplate meaning, and irrevocable is absolutely distinct.

Here is an example: an agreement between GlassHouse and Dell (link below) states that GlassHouse grants Dell "a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully-paid, nonexclusive, worldwide license..."

That should seem familiar, because a similar provision is in the OGL. This list of adjectives is standard license boilerplate. Notice, however, in the OGL, the word "irrevocable" is conspicuously absent from the standard list of adjectives. That absence in an otherwise standard boilerplate provision is extremely important in the eyes of an interpreting court. If the OGL was intended to be irrevocable, it would say "irrevocable." In most courts, that argument will beat any other argument about reliance, or promissory estoppel, or breach of contract claims (revoking a license is not the same as breaching a contract), or anything else.

The agreement between GlassHouse and Dell also states: "Irrevocable Grant. In no event will the rights granted in this SECTION 2 be subject to termination, revocation or any further limitation, in whole or in part, for any reason, and all such rights shall remain perpetual, unlimited, and irrevocable under all circumstances."
Intellectual Property License Agreement

Now THAT is an irrevocable license! THAT should have been in the OGL if the original writers had really wanted to take away WotC's ability to revoke the OGL.

Here I will rest my case.

 

[dm4hire]

A question I have is given the reliance on the OGL the 3pp have on it and that it could potentially cause several competitors to WotC to suffer financial problems if enforced. Could this move by WotC (given the wording revealed) be construed as grounds for antitrust action? WotC would effectibly be monopolizing by forcing competitors to cowtoe to their demands or go out of business.

 

[S'mon]

I see people saying that "perpetual" is ambiguous or depends on the context. This is not the case in American licensing law; "perpetual" has a very specific, standard, boilerplate meaning, and irrevocable is absolutely distinct.

Here is an example: an agreement between GlassHouse and Dell (link below) states that GlassHouse grants Dell "a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free, fully-paid, nonexclusive, worldwide license..."

That should seem familiar, because a similar provision is in the OGL. This list of adjectives is standard license boilerplate. Notice, however, in the OGL, the word "irrevocable" is conspicuously absent from the standard list of adjectives. That absence in an otherwise standard boilerplate provision is extremely important in the eyes of an interpreting court. If the OGL was intended to be irrevocable, it would say "irrevocable." In most courts, that argument will beat any other argument about reliance, or promissory estoppel, or breach of contract claims (revoking a license is not the same as breaching a contract), or anything else.

The agreement between GlassHouse and Dell also states: "Irrevocable Grant. In no event will the rights granted in this SECTION 2 be subject to termination, revocation or any further limitation, in whole or in part, for any reason, and all such rights shall remain perpetual, unlimited, and irrevocable under all circumstances."
Intellectual Property License Agreement

Now THAT is an irrevocable license! THAT should have been in the OGL if the original writers had really wanted to take away WotC's ability to revoke the OGL.

Here I will rest my case.

Please provide a similar licencing case with a Perpetual licence that was held to be Revocable on notice. Other people have been saying that open software licences had the same wording prior to ca 2007, and that they were held to be Irrevocable. A case to the contrary would support your argument. No one is disputing that modern licences do routinely include the word 'Irrevocable'. Finding a licence that does say Irrevocable doesn't prove much.