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

[Steel_Wind]

That's not relevant. A gratuitous promise made very solemnly and put into writing is still just a gratuitous promise.

Unless it also under seal; then matters are different. To be clear, the OGL is not purportedly signed & sealed nor are any of the documents under discussion here.

 

[Catolias]

But instead of a brand new licence, we're seeing this "OGL 1.1" that explicitly claims to be an update, putting it within section 9 of OGL 1.0. And we're seeing an implicit claim that they can somehow revoke 1.0 - they don't seem to have made this claim explicit, but it's clearly what they want readers of 1.1 to think.

OGL 1.1 is a terror weapon, not a weapon designed for maximum legal efficiency. It's an AT-AT not an MBT. In the cause of sowing fear and confusion, it puts WoTC in a significantly worse legal position. A licence drafted to protect WoTC's legal rights and to stand up well in court would look quite different, IMO.

This makes some sense to me. It struck me that this was similar to the negotiation tactics I’ve come across in my area of work that intersects with the law. Often ridiculous claims are made to demonstrate reasonableness and fairness (legal, not ethical / moral), or just simply to gain an idea of where the other side believes the line should be drawn.

 

[Catolias]

I’ve separated this from my other post because it is speculative. One suggestion I have seen on another forum suggests wotc’s target in the OGL 1.1 is not 3PPs but VTTs. The argument for this is that VTTs are the mechanism for Hasbro to more effectively monetise D&D. The effect on smaller 3PPs would be collateral damage.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Now significant parts of the licensing document have been revealed, would any lawyers in this thread revise or clarify their previous opinions? In light of the new information, do you think v.1.1 of the OGL successfully terminates the rights granted under v1.0a? Or should we regard this as an attempt to spread FUD (fear, uncertainty, and doubt)?

 

[Catolias]

Game mechanics are not considered protectable. TSR and WotC I am sure paid no royalties.

A chart with DCs that go up by 5 is not a copyright protected concept, IMO.

Would you imagine that if WoTC commenced proceedings that the opposing side would seek to have an expert on the history of ttrpgs to give evidence? I recall Tunnel & Trolls from the 1970s having the same basic 6 abilities. Surely, there’s be others from that time.

 

[Azzy]

A chart with DCs that go up by 5 is not a copyright protected concept, IMO.

Agreed, R.Talsorian Games' Interlock system (and probably other companies' game systems) use a difficulty table that used increments of 5 before WotC started dabbling in RPGs.

 

[S'mon]

Would you imagine that if WoTC commenced proceedings that the opposing side would seek to have an expert on the history of ttrpgs to give evidence? I recall Tunnel & Trolls from the 1970s having the same basic 6 abilities. Surely, there’s be others from that time.

No one is going to sue over basic game mechanics IMO. I don't think this speculation is very worthwhile.

I guess if they did sue, the defendant might bring an historian/expert in. I saw Games Workshop at one stage convince a judge during the Chapter House litigation that they owned a copyright in large shoulder pads/pauldrons. Chapter House would have benefitted from someone who knew the history, that early WH40K design including Space marine giant shoulder pads was clearly closely inspired by the art of 70s/80s 2000 AD comic artists like Brett Ewins, Carlos Ezquerra et al. So if it came to it, yes maybe.

 

[pemerton]

Unless it also under seal; then matters are different.

Absolutely. In some contexts, it might also create a trust. But I left those cases out because they seemed needlessly complicated in the context; and as you say the OGL is not signed and sealed, and nor does it create a trust over WotC's IP rights in other parties' favour.

 

[pemerton]

Does 5e borrow concepts from other creative common's games, and if so, does invalidating the license invalidate 5e's use of those concepts?

5e does not purport to be produced under any sort of licence. WotC asserts ownership of whatever IP rights attach to the 5e works that it publishes. And I've never heard any suggestion that in fact WotC is infringing anyone else's copyright or using anyone else's trademarks.

 

[pemerton]

Would you imagine that if WoTC commenced proceedings that the opposing side would seek to have an expert on the history of ttrpgs to give evidence? I recall Tunnel & Trolls from the 1970s having the same basic 6 abilities. Surely, there’s be others from that time.

With T&T it goes the other way - T&T was deliberately modelled on D&D, but intended to be simpler and more intuitive.

Whether T&T infringed any TSR-owned copyrights I leave for others to try and work out!