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

[Xyxox]

Looking like Paizo will be fighting this. Sounds like a very good chance of them doing it any way.

 

[overgeeked]

Looking like Paizo will be fighting this. Sounds like a very good chance.

Good. Source?

 

[kenada]

Looking like Paizo will be fighting this. Sounds like a very good chance.

Do you have a source? I don’t see anything on their social media or website.

 

[Uta-napishti]

Open software is different, because software code and copyright is a huge can of worms. I only know enough about it to know to stay the hell away from it.

Boy, While I think that you are bringing interesting points to this discussion, this is IMHO an admission you are way out of your field. If you think Open source licenses are weird and unique...despite the fact that they run much of the world intellectual property economy, I don't know what to tell you.

Also on the presense or absense of the word "irrevocable" the GPL 2.0 an open source lisence tested more than any other in court, doesn't include the word irrevocable, but it is irrevocable, say the courts. It was written in 1991. A later version of the license, GPL 3.0, written in 2007 does include the work "irrevocable", probably because a lawyer in your vein told them it was a good idea these days. The OGL, written in 2001, was aping earlier opensource licenses at the time like the GPL 2.0, which did not bother to include that word. Those earlier licenses have been considered irrevocable in court nonetheless.

I do agree with you completely about the fact that OneDND won't be available back under the old OGLs, but I don't think there is any reasonable way that the 5.0 SRD could be said to no longer be available to all under the OGL 1.0a. The 5E SRD already out there with that license attached, and anyone can use that document under the attached license -- no Backsies.

 

[Xyxox]

Do you have a source? I don’t see anything on their social media or website.

the stream I'm watching on Youtube right now

 

[Myrdin Potter]

There is a certain amount of hyperbole about the ability to go completely nuclear in this type of lawsuit. Federal lawsuits do not allow you to blindly select a location. Usually there needs to be a nexus and a reason. So many 3PP are in the greater Seattle area as is WoTC that any defense lawyer worth paying can easily fight that.

WoTC is actually much more vulnerable to discovery and discovery costs that the average 3PP. What exactly is there to discover? About the only damaging thing would be some internal document saying that they well understood that the license was at the whim of WoTC or something.

I also think that there is too much reliance on game mechanics not being able to be copyrighted. The bare mechanics, yes. The expression of the mechanics? That I would have to see case law examples, especially for RPG which are different than a more simple board game.

WoTC certainly can make the defense somewhat expensive but it is more the cloud over the product and the ability to sell it while defending it that I see is the main threat. Start a slow burn of cash on defense and stop replacement cash via revenue. Even a short term hurting of overall 5e revenue will hit 3PP.

I also can easily place myself in their shoes and see why Hasbro might think this is a sound business decision.

Monday is the start of the workweek so I guess we might see something more there.

 

[Xyxox]

Good. Source?

There is also a tiny chance Paizo sells to WotC as it would make sense for WotC to buy them.

 

[overgeeked]

There is also a tiny chance Paizo sells to WotC as it would make sense for WotC to buy them.

So is that him speculating or is that something he knows that Paizo is going but just haven’t announced yet?

 

[Xyxox]

So is that him speculating or is that something he knows that Paizo is going but just haven’t announced yet?

It was based on his inside knowledge of Paizo. He stated outright the best chance the community has is Paizo fighting it and that there is a good chance they will, but did caution there is also a small chance they just sell the company to WotC to avoid the fight.

He has also said that there are multiple third parties in the background talking with lawyers and getting prepared.

 

[Uta-napishti]

This is the bit that confuses me (as a non-lawyer).

The core part of the OGL is this:
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.

"Use" is defined in the OGL as "to use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content."

"Distribute" is further defined to mean "to reproduce, license, rent, lease, sell, broadcast, publicly display, transmit or otherwise distribute"

So, when Paizo released Pathfinder, they used the OGL, and were thus granted a perpetual license to license Open Game Content. So given the license's viral nature, I should be able to rely on e.g. Paizo's offer of the license instead of Wizards'. And there are a few places that have copies of the SRD published without any changes.

And this license is printed in quite a few books, as required by the license itself. That printed license promises me that I can use the Open Game Content in that book under the terms of the license. Again as a non-lawyer, this does not seem like a thing Wizards should be able to revoke.

You have as a non lawyer hit the actual crux of the matter, and the reason why OGL 1.0a lisenced content like the old SRDs are safe. New content like a future OneDnD SRD, will not use an open license, so that is a completely separate issue how WoTC is killing golden goose there.