D&D 5E So, 5e OGL

[Mistwell]

Very very simplified, the license seems to have the form:

Do X, and Don't Do Y, and Hasbro won't sue you.

By analogy:

Do cut your front lawn, and don't paint your house other than white, and I won't sue you (as a neighbor) for not cutting your back lawn. And, I will require that any new owner of my house to adopt this same agreement. (And, the agreement shall be held in perpetuity, until both house owners agree to terminate the agreement.)

Then, as long as I own the neighboring house, I would seem to be bound by the agreement, even if I moved away (but still owned the neighboring house) and arguably could have no care anymore in regards to the agreement.

That is, the value of "Do X" and "Don't Do Y", in this case, "Do cut your lawn" and "Don't paint your house other than white" seems, by being subjective, non-diminishable.

Thx!

TomB

Just because something is subjective, that doesn't make it not diminishable. It would have a simple "reasonable person" standard applied to it. The law, unlike D&D, has settled criteria for these sorts of things. So if a jury (or judge, or arbitrator, etc.) decides that a reasonable person would no longer see any value in the consideration at all, then there is no consideration. That doesn't mean nobody could ever see value in it. And yes, "reasonable person" is vague. That's OK, that's one purpose of a jury, to decide things that are not certain but which ride on what they think after considering all the evidence and the law.

Though again, this is all my guess/opinion. I could be wrong on how it would work out. Consideration is a weird, rare issue. If there is a world expert on it, I am not that person.

 

[Mistwell]

And this discussion is why I keep bringing it up every month.

I think it's healthy to bring it up. And, I like having it all in one thread. For what that is worth...which I suppose isn't much

 

[tomBitonti]

Just because something is subjective, that doesn't make it not diminishable. It would have a simple "reasonable person" standard applied to it. The law, unlike D&D, has settled criteria for these sorts of things. So if a jury (or judge, or arbitrator, etc.) decides that a reasonable person would no longer see any value in the consideration at all, then there is no consideration. That doesn't mean nobody could ever see value in it. And yes, "reasonable person" is vague. That's OK, that's one purpose of a jury, to decide things that are not certain but which ride on what they think after considering all the evidence and the law.

Though again, this is all my guess/opinion. I could be wrong on how it would work out. Consideration is a weird, rare issue. If there is a world expert on it, I am not that person.

Well, sure.

How about:

I have a parking space in a desirable spot. I agree to allow you to use it for a year, for a fee.

You (a) sell your car (because you found an apartment that means you don't need the spot any more), or
(b) you get into an accident, and the car is totaled, and you can't afford a replacement.

In either case, you no longer have a use for the space. However, the value of the available space remains.

Would you be required to pay the fee for the remainder of the year? (I'm guessing yes.) Do either of the conditions (a) or (b) matter?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Mistwell]

Well, sure.

How about:

I have a parking space in a desirable spot. I agree to allow you to use it for a year, for a fee.

You (a) sell your car (because you found an apartment that means you don't need the spot any more), or
(b) you get into an accident, and the car is totaled, and you can't afford a replacement.

In either case, you no longer have a use for the space. However, the value of the available space remains.

Would you be required to pay the fee for the remainder of the year? (I'm guessing yes.) Do either of the conditions (a) or (b) matter?

Thx!

TomB

That would be changing an existing agreement you have with someone, which wouldn't work. But each use of the OGL for a new product is a new license.

 

[aramis erak]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] There is another route - get the OGL declared invalid on its face. Due to the way things tend to work, it would render all the OGL materials licenses void, but the court probably would rule that prior unintended infractions are good faith errors and not actionable. ISTR hearing that one particular early open license was declared invalid.

Another way would be to "prove" that the material in D&D wasn't legitimately held by the contributor and so couldn't be open licensed by the licensing agent.

 

[Uchawi]

Regardless, certain expectations where set by the OGL, and anything that does not match it in intent will probably fall flat on its face. Any move for a tighter interpretation of the OGL would have an equal negative impact. Ideas are very important in a global economy, with so many players at the table (Internet). I would be very reluctant to sign on to anything that did not protect my ideas (explicitly).

 

[tomBitonti]

That would be changing an existing agreement you have with someone, which wouldn't work. But each use of the OGL for a new product is a new license.

Ah, point taken.

Couldn't Hasbro just stop providing the OGL? No fancy steps. Just stop providing it.

4. Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Thx!

TomB

 

[Charles Wright]

The thing about the OGL is that what it helps facilitate can be done anyway.

That is why Judges Guild material was publishable back in the 80s.

 

[prosfilaes]

If you already used the license, you could continue to use it. But, there doesn't seem to be anything to prevent them from taking the license away from potential new adoptees. The license is perpetual only when granted. Nothing to say Hasbro must continue granting the license, except community uproar. Or am I missing something?

Where's the win? Hasbro would be causing uproar, and yet not doing anything about Paizo and Troll Lord Games.

 

[tomBitonti]

Where's the win? Hasbro would be causing uproar, and yet not doing anything about Paizo and Troll Lord Games.

That's a question of whether removing the license is a good idea. I agree that removing the license seems to be a rather bad idea. But that's a different question. The question that I was considering is whether Hasbro could simply stop offering the OGL for new products without resorting to fancy or difficult steps.

Thx!