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

[Reynard]

And here I was trying to stay at least a little bit optimistic about things. This deal keeps getting worse all the time...

Remember that a lot of attorneys on these boards are disagreeing, so don't immediately assume this one that apparently confirms your worst fears is right. We don't know. We can't know until at least the final release of OGL 1.1, and probably not then either since it is likely to have to go to court.

 

[Art Waring]

Remember that a lot of attorneys on these boards are disagreeing, so don't immediately assume this one that apparently confirms your worst fears is right. We don't know. We can't know until at least the final release of OGL 1.1, and probably not then either since it is likely to have to go to court.

Yeah its certainly all up in the air right now. I honestly wish they never went down this road, but whats done is done.

 

[wingsandsword]

They generally look at what the words would mean to a reasonable person at the time. I think WoTC's 2000 FAQ explaining their intent would certainly be relevant.

The fact they kept that FAQ up for over 20 years, and if they've taken it down it's only come down within the last few days, also goes a long way to saying that this interpretation that they can "de authorize" the OGL 1.0a is a very new one and that they spent 22 years saying that if they ever released a new OGL version then people could always use the older versions.

Combine that with Ryan Dancey's statements as the exec at WotC who authorized the OGL to be released (and conceived of it in the first place) that he doesn't think the OGL can be rescinded and it was never meant to be rescinded also goes very far with regards to intent.

I keep thinking this was the result of some WotC execs telling the legal dept. to come up with ANY excuse to rescind the OGL and they went with the first vaguely plausible thing anyone in the dept. came up with after most of the lawyers told them it couldn't be done.

 

[kenada]

The fact they kept that FAQ up for over 20 years, and if they've taken it down it's only come down within the last few days, also goes a long way to saying that this interpretation that they can "de authorize" the OGL 1.0a is a very new one and that they spent 22 years saying that if they ever released a new OGL version then people could always use the older versions.

The FAQ went offline several years ago after a website redesign. I doubt it had anything to do with the proposed OGL changes.

 

[Maxperson]

Question: is this case that is complicated enough to where such expensive legal maneuverings could be done? Obviously, I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like there's a lot of depth to it? It honestly doesn't seem that complex.

joe b.

Complexity isn't needed to make litigation very expensive. The discovery process is lengthy and costly. And then there are the motions, attorney phone calls to discuss the case, mandatory conferences, mediations, court appearances, etc. It adds up very quickly and if one side is trying to make things more expensive, they can very easily.

 

[rcade]

And Ryan Dancey will give his evidence and others in the industry will as well. All of this is all but certain to happen, because Lisa Stevens will ask them to do it.

The archive of the mailing lists OGF-L and OGF-D20-L will have a lot of posts where he (and by extension WOTC) reassures RPG publishers that the license can be relied on forever.

Instead of using a dubious legal retcon to crush 23 years of OGL 1.0-licensed work, Hasbro should be finding ways to make the most successful companies using the OGL want to be into business with them. If they left OGL 1.0 alone and released the next D&D under a new license, everything that was different in the new edition would be back in their walled garden.

 

[Mistwell]

And here I was trying to stay at least a little bit optimistic about things. This deal keeps getting worse all the time...

Alexander Macris is a "controversial figure" is all I will say on that.

 

[Mistwell]

The fact they kept that FAQ up for over 20 years, and if they've taken it down it's only come down within the last few days,

Years. It came down years ago, long before all of this, at the same time tons of other stuff was taken down when they did a re-vamp. It's just that some only now noticed.

 

[Reynard]

Years. It came down years ago, long before all of this, at the same time tons of other stuff was taken down when they did a re-vamp. It's just that some only now noticed.

I just visited the FAQ yesterday. It's linked here on the site in different threads.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yes, this is my feeling - it's certainly possible that WoTC management could send their lawyers into battle with a weak case, but it seems unlikely they'd risk going as far as a judgement. I've seen a lot of cases settle last minute when one side called the others' bluff. Often the result, the settlement, is better than previously offered terms.

see that's the thing... since you used "call your bluff" lets look at a poker anology... 1 side had $10,000,000 the other side has $1,250,500 both are saying they have winning hands, then the side with more money raises the pot to $1,251,000... the other side can go all in and "Call the bluff" and if they win the game goes on and they doubled there stake... if they lose they are out. The safe bet is to fold... becuse even if they are bluffing they just 'bought the pot'

SO yeah, if WotC has a weak case and takes it right up to the end MAYBE the 3pp can force a better deal... but if they lose they lose everything.