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

[Prime_Evil]

This thread was started by a lawyer that feels that they can just revoke/terminate it. The other lawyers in this this thread had not argued against the general right to terminate / revoke a license. Yes, there might be things that would block it, but those are theories and there is a feeling that it does not say it cannot be revoked therefore it can be.

Unless you are a lawyer studied in this area and you have case law/experience to say otherwise?

The above aside, I also do not think just revoking it is such a slam dunk but it will be up to a judge to decide.

There are differing opinions on this. We need to wait until the final licence is released to understand the full implications. It is possible WotC may modify their position based upon the level of community pushback.

 

[FrogReaver]

This is what section 9 actually says:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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.

The lack of 'authorized' in the 2nd underline makes perfect sense if one assumes a version of the license can be deauthorized. In that case it would read that OGC distributed under any OGL version, even a not currently authorized version, can still be used with currently authorized versions of the OGL. That makes 100% sense.

It's hard for me to see an alternative reading that makes as much sense, given just the context of section 9.
Consider the scenario:
1. OGC was distributed under a previous version of this OGL license.
2. You distribute it under a Wizards updated version of the licensee.
Why would it need to specify that you can use any authorized version when the OGL specifically tells us the sentence before that the only party that can publish an updated version of the license is wizards - Wouldn't it have been clearer to just say 'any version'? Also, if 'authorized' was necessary in the first underlined part, why wouldn't authorized also be necessary in the 2nd underlined part?

Thus, from a purely textual consideration - I personally am starting to find the deauthorization argument more compelling than I previously did.

 

[mamba]

I would focus on the license being perpetual, the fact that at the time it was created this commonly also meant irrevocable (see GPL 2.0, where this was already tried in court), and the fact that everyone involved in the creation of the license said it was irrevocable, so clearly that was the intent.

Once it is irrevocable, there is no authorization issue

 

[FrogReaver]

Thus, whatever exactly the OGL v 1.1 looks like, it will not be an "update" within the meaning of section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a.

And "update" has no other legal meaning in this context that I can see.

So trying to argue that v 1.1 will nevertheless, in some sense, be an update strikes me as pointless and even quixotic.

This doesn't stop WotC's media and comms team describing things however they like - but why are you taking their choice of words so seriously if what you're actually trying to do is cut through the comms team's spin and make legal sense of what might actually be happening?

I'm not sure I'm following your reasoning here. What precisely are you saying prevents 1.1 from saying whatever WOTC wants while still being an updated version of the OGL?

 

[FrogReaver]

Who is being defrauded? What financial advantage is WotC getting via dishonesty?

I used 'fraud' before. It's perhaps not the most legally accurate term.

In the U.S. there are laws against unfair and deceptive business practices. Here's what my search engine supplied.

'Federal and state law prohibits businesses from engaging in activities that are “unfair” or “deceptive.” The key federal law on this subject for most businesses is the Federal Trade Commission Act, enforced, of course, by the Federal Trade Commission.'

'Deceptive business practices generally involve misleading a customer into believing something that isn’t true through misrepresentation or omission. In contrast, unfair practices are likely to cause or do cause substantial damages to consumers in the form of financial loss or physical injury.'

IMO, the FAQ's would be evidence of 'deceptive'. Unfair would be the financial loss of companies and induvial that became reliant on the OGL due to WOTC's misrepresentations only to have it ripped out from under them. For example, if a large bank had a contract with their customers (say an account where the fine print allowed some loop hole where they could update the terms and charge fees but they advertised no fees ever), there is no doubt in my mind that the FTC would rightfully hammer that bank if they tried to charge those customers those fees on those accounts.

Would these laws be applicable in this case?

 

[Branduil]

IANAL, but given that a massive amount of the OGC at this point has been contributed by non-WotC parties, and was never part of D&D in the first place, is there not an argument to be made that "de-authorizing" the OGL is effectively stealing the content created by others, in the expectation that it would be available for all in perpetuity?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

'Federal and state law prohibits businesses from engaging in activities that are “unfair” or “deceptive.” The key federal law on this subject for most businesses is the Federal Trade Commission Act, enforced, of course, by the Federal Trade Commission.'

'Deceptive business practices generally involve misleading a customer into believing something that isn’t true through misrepresentation or omission. In contrast, unfair practices are likely to cause or do cause substantial damages to consumers in the form of financial loss or physical injury.'

if you can sue a movie studio for a misleading trailer (spoiler that is like every good trailer) then I imagine you COULD sue for this too.

 

[FrogReaver]

IANAL, but given that a massive amount of the OGC at this point has been contributed by non-WotC parties, and was never part of D&D in the first place, is there not an argument to be made that "de-authorizing" the OGL is effectively stealing the content created by others, in the expectation that it would be available for all in perpetuity?

Stealing/theft doesn't make sense to me here. Unfair and deceptive though...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Stealing/theft doesn't make sense to me here. Unfair and deceptive though...

in theory if they had done this back in the 3e to 3.5 move, when it was only out 2 years would you feel that is better or worse?
DOes the 20 years of building into the thought that "all games are D&D now" change it at all?

 

[Jd Smith1]

IANAL, but given that a massive amount of the OGC at this point has been contributed by non-WotC parties, and was never part of D&D in the first place, is there not an argument to be made that "de-authorizing" the OGL is effectively stealing the content created by others, in the expectation that it would be available for all in perpetuity?

No. You knew you were building on rented land when you created that content.

Assuming that you would always have access to someone else's property is a failure of yours, not the owner of the property.