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

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Corporations are not Legislators (yet!)

There are several state legislatures where the line is basically non-existent.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Gosh, this is some good debate.

Like a lot of lay people, I always thought the law sounded interesting, based on TV and movies, until I actually looked at what's involved in it. (I have to turn legal arguments into English periodically, and it's like translating calculus into English, if calculus involved opinions rather than math.)

 

[overgeeked]

Eh, not exactly? It's hard to just sit around and debate abstractions without making them more concrete with, you know, facts, like actual analysis of the prior OGL, the new OGL, the theory that Hasbro is using, and the jurisdiction(s) that are at play.

It's sort of like this- people can argue about something like "a statute of limitations," and what that means, and the difference between that and a statute of repose. But until you know the cause of action (what SOL applies) and what jurisdiction, and other important issues (could there be equitable tolling?) it's hard to address an issue definitively.

Most legal issues are fairly predictable. But as one good friend explained to me- they don't pay the lawyers the really big bucks to explain the black letter law; any half-wit that passed the bar should be able to do that. Instead, the big bucks go to the people who understand the black letter law and can successfully argue why it doesn't apply to their client in this case.

Sure. We have at least three lawyers, including a PhD who apparently teaches law to baby lawyers on here...and they're all disagreeing about what this means and what will happen.

So again, whatever's said here doesn't matter and it's clearly not binding in any meaningful way. It all comes down to someone with the money and time to actually fight a long legal battle in court against Hasbro. Until there's something akin to a settled case on this, WotC will still be able to bully people into not publishing or accepting their poisoned-pill GSL 2.

 

[Remathilis]

And all are mutually exclusive... As if it was done by deception, trickery and vaguely formulated statements. Everyone likens lawyers to devils, but seems Fey is more appropriate.

This is why I never signed the check to my lawyer. I don't need him knowing my real name. [emoji16]

 

[Alzrius]

Like a lot of lay people, I always thought the law sounded interesting, based on TV and movies, until I actually looked at what's involved in it. (I have to turn legal arguments into English periodically, and it's like translating calculus into English, if calculus involved opinions rather than math.)

I dunno, I remember when that movie Double Jeopardy came out; even at the time I was pretty sure that its interpretation of that particular clause was completely bogus.

 

[Nylanfs]

Quite possibly the best result of this whole issue is that the OGL may be actually be tested in court.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Sure. We have at least three lawyers, including a PhD who apparently teaches law to baby lawyers on here...and they're all disagreeing about what this means and what will happen.

In fairness, I'm trying very hard to take no position!

So again, whatever's said here doesn't matter and it's clearly not binding in any meaningful way. It all comes down to someone with the money and time to actually fight a long legal battle in court against Hasbro. Until there's something akin to a settled case on this, WotC will still be able to bully people into not publishing or accepting their poisoned-pill GSL 2.

I partially agree- in another thread I mentioned the in terrorem effect of litigation, and I meant it. Many people settle cases even when they know that they are right simply to avoid the cost, time, and uncertainty of litigation.

That said, I think a lot of the uncertainty right now is simply because we don't have the source document, especially a hard copy of the proposed OGL1.1 to look at. It's really hard to discuss something that's complicated in more than general platitudes unless you have specifics.

Also? I just don't feel like working all this up myself right now. Maybe (maybe) after we see a real copy of the official 1.1, I'll change my mind.

 

[FallenRX]

So i figured Wizards might come at this from this angle, and looked into it a bit, and i came across this casetext

The Terms “Revocable” and “Irrevocable” in License Agreements: Tips and Pitfalls | Casetext

casetext.com

" Conversely, courts typically hold that simple non-exclusive licenses that are silent on revocability but specify a set duration are non-terminable during the set duration. "

Does this matter to this case at all? Im genuinely curious. I feel this is where the idea the OGL was irrevocable.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Without an installed user base on the order of D&D's, that's a non-starter.

I think we'd be much more likely to see a diaspora. Back to the OSR, where WotC would have to play whack-a-mole trying to shut down systems that have already proliferated like rabbits, back to Pathfinder, where Paizo would likely put up some sort of fight, etc.

And some systems, like Castles & Crusades, if allowed to publish under previous licenses, are already promoting the ability to produce third party content through them. It would be irritating, but not impossible, for me to jump backwards to them, especially if new stuff I liked was being produced to be compatible with their game. (Basically, AD&D on a 3E D20 chassis.)

I find it hard to believe that a cost-conscious Hasbro would bother going after all of them, especially once someone goes Hacker Manifesto on them and puts something out anonymously, explicitly written to both use new terminology and genuinely be impossible to retract.

 

[mhd]

If DT and itch play along with WotC, it's more a business matter than a legal one anyway.