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

[Xyxox]

it was supposed to come out on 1/4 with 3PPS having to decide by 1/13 whether to accept the terms

If the leak was planned, then that gives WotC/Hasbro plausible deniability until they actually release it. Again, that ssumes WotC/Hasbro plan to go the Nuclear Lawfare route. The likelihood of that increases the longer WotC/Hasbro goes without commenting on the leak, IMO.

 

[Xyxox]

So how did Chapter House fight Games Workshop? That seems a much more complicated case than this one. I don't understand where this $500,000 Discovery cost is coming from? For a sole trader? I can certainly appreciate it being very expensive to fight one of these big corporations, but the numbers being bandied around seem excessive to me, compared to my (fairly meagre) knowledge of other cases.

Chapter House fought all the way to the end. then they went bankrupt and are now no more. They did not enjoy a single benefit from their win. They went down. Games Workshop just could not fight the Nuclear Lawfare expensive enough to end them before it went to arguments. They also fought in European courts, not US courts. If the case was fought in US courts, they would never have made it to the motions phase.

 

[S'mon]

I would say that WotC/Hasbro would stand less than a 10% chance of winning if the right IP and contract attorneys were to actually argue the case before a judge in a court of law. WotC/Hasbro would never want a jury trial because their chance would likely drop to less than 1%.

The problem is, how do you fund such litigation? You would need at least as much money as Critical Role raised for the Vox Machina cartoon series.

In England: the law firm agrees no win no fee; knowing that the court will order the loser to pay the winner's costs. They know they have an over 90% chance of getting their fees paid by a nice fat US corporation.

The actual legal fees here in England would I think be most likely in the high tens of thousands of pounds for this kind of case, maybe more, but in any case the defendant shouldn't have any problem getting a firm to take it on no-win no-fee. This actually seems an even stronger case than Marshall's position that OSRIC was OGL compliant, which 2005/6 WoTC backed off on disputing.

 

[S'mon]

Chapter House fought all the way to the end. then they went bankrupt and are now no more. They did not enjoy a single benefit from their win. They went down. Games Workshop just could not fight the Nuclear Lawfare expensive enough to end them before it went to arguments. They also fought in European courts, not US courts. If the case was fought in US courts, they would never have made it to the motions phase.

No, they fought in US courts too. I saw US court judgements.

 

[mamba]

And what is the effect on the reliance of third parties upon this wording to enter into independent agreements with licensees covering IP not under WoTC control? Must they cease using the OGL version 1.0a? Or do these sublicenses survive termination of the parent license?

as I said IANAL. From my understanding the following is true

1) everything already under 1.0a can stay under 1.0a, that is the perpetual part of the license
2) nothing new can be released under the license, as it is revoked / no longer authorized

 

[mamba]

That's all that really matters.

not to me

 

[overgeeked]

Nvm.

 

[Staffan]

Why not use Creative Commons ? Heck, I'd say the OGL was a good start too, fix it up a little and you are good

One of the clever things about the OGL was the distinction of Open Game Content, which other people could use under the terms of the license, and Product Identity, which they could not. That's what allows Paizo to claim Golarion and related things as PI while still sharing the game mechanics as OGC. I do not know if CC allows for a similar distinction, nor what hoops you must jump through to make it happen if it does.

 

[pemerton]

Your take is not wrong imo (IANAL), but seems to be more focused on the copyright part. I was entirely focused on section 9 ("You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."). Doesn't it no longer being an authorized version affect everyone?

Only if you interpret section 9 as conferring on WotC a unilateral power to revoke their licensing agreements. Which I think is an implausible construction, given that it appears in the context of a provision dealing with updates, not with revocation/termination.

 

[kenada]

One of the clever things about the OGL was the distinction of Open Game Content, which other people could use under the terms of the license, and Product Identity, which they could not. That's what allows Paizo to claim Golarion and related things as PI while still sharing the game mechanics as OGC. I do not know if CC allows for a similar distinction, nor what hoops you must jump through to make it happen if it does.

You’d probably want to create a separate SRD of just the stuff you want to release under a CC license. That’s what Blades in the Dark does with its SRD, which is released under CC-BY-3.0. None of the setting information (including crews and playbooks) is included, but the core of the system is there.