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

[Alzrius]

And was a D&D 3.5 game. Back then at least "Pathfinder" just appeared to be their name for their Golarion-based adventure paths. Was a separate system already in play then?

No, but it was still Paizo splitting from WotC and using the OGL to do it; at the time it was already clear that they were charting their own course via breathing new life into an older edition of the game, and that this was a very big deal.

Also, Paizo announced in March of 2008 that they'd be putting out their own Pathfinder RPG, with the first alpha-playtest packet coming out then, months ahead of the GSL.

 

[Cadence]

This came up in Twitter in relationship to promissory estoppel, and reminded me of some folks bringing up different state laws on EN. Any thoughts on if this is vaguely a relevant thing from those of you in the field?

View attachment 271618

Cases touching on it that is laughably beyond my ability to see if it is relevant (in Wisconsin and Indiana anyway)...

Neff Grp. Distribs. v. Cognex Corp., 642 F. Supp. 3d 173 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read Neff Grp. Distribs. v. Cognex Corp., 642 F. Supp. 3d 173, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

and

WFDL Is Broader Than You Think - Lessons From Golf Pros (Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law)

On June 22, 2017, the Wisconsin Supreme Court took a 3-Iron to common intuitions about who is, and who is not, a dealer protected by the Wisconsin Fair Dealership Law (WFDL). In Benson v.

www.natlawreview.com

 

[kenada]

This would seem to work for one step downstream, but I don't see how it can work for multiple "generations" of content – at least not with a CC-BY-SA license (which I think would be the closest to the OGL).

With the OGL, Paizo could release Pathfinder. Then Dreamscarred Press could make Ultimate Psionics, based on Pathfinder and the psionics rules in the SRD. Another party could then make an adventure that included the psionics stuff. I don't see how that's possible when the CC:ed version is separated into a separate work.

I don’t follow. How is having a separate document with the reusable content different from having the reusable content mixed in with non-reusable content? It seems like it should be easier to know what you are allowed to use and under what terms.

 

[Prime_Evil]

Does it matter that Section 9 of the OGL provides a mechanism for updating the licence but does not specify a mechanism for de-authorizing previous versions of the OGL? Is there a meaningful distinction between updating the terms and revocation of the license itself?

 

[kenada]

Just to follow up on this - it would require everyone to release two versions, wouldn't it? The "bare bones" version which is licensed under the viral scheme, and the full version that includes PI. The licences for the bare-bones version would then need to include one-way doors into full versions ie you can include bare bones stuff in your full version, but your full version is not itself subject to a viral licence, which operates only over your "bare bones" version.

Personally, I’d just use CC-BY for the SRD. While it’s not quite in the same spirit, games can use your OGC and contribute nothing back by declaring their mechanics Product Identity, so the practical effect seems about the same.

 

[Reynard]

Hasbro-WotC appears to be banking on the "youth" to make the money for them.

But I doubt the "youth" want to see "greedy privileged big-corporation capitalists" win this struggle.

So, none of the other major missteps in.the last couple years have mobilized these youths, but dropping a license those youths probably didn't even know existed will do it? I somehow doubt it. The people that are mad are the people that saw it come in and save D&D in the first place.

If a boycott happens, and all that social-media goodwill becomes poison against Hasbro-WotC

I doubt Hasbro-WotC will prevail. At all. Perhaps never recover.

Lol. No.

 

[Yaarel]

So, none of the other major missteps in.the last couple years have mobilized these youths, but dropping a license those youths probably didn't even know existed will do it? I somehow doubt it. The people that are mad are the people that saw it come in and save D&D in the first place.

Lol. No.

Wait and see what the "youth" will do when the Hasbro-WotC lawyers assault them.

 

[Reynard]

Wait and see what the "youth" will do when the Hasbro-WotC lawyers assault them.

With baited breath.

 

[mamba]

I don't see how including the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, whether or not that is "for convenience", can make you more vulnerable to being sued, except in the following way: if you are publishing content that in itself would not infringe any of WotC's IP rights, but that is something the OGL requires you to not publish because you agree that it is WotC's Product Identity.

But other than that, all including the OGL v 1.0/1.0a can do - as best I can see - is to strengthen your claim to enjoy permission to publish your stuff without being liable to WotC.

I agree, you can afford to wait until the Eye of Sauron has found you. My original reply was more for the worst case scenario of WotC having succeeded in revoking 1.0a

 

[Yaarel]

With baited breath.

Personally, I hope it doesnt come to that.

I want to celebrate 2024, not relive the death of 4e.



The main difference now, is D&D is popculture and newsworthy.

"Roleplayers boycott Dungeons & Dragons" is a soapopera that will pique international attention.

No corporation wants that.

Neither do the D&D fans want what Hasbro-WotC is doing.