They certainly seem to be seeking to undermine 3PPs, including Paizo. Either bring them under WoTC control via contract, or abandon the OGL and become vulnerable to litigation for copyright infringement.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
- Thread starter DavyGreenwind
- Start date
They certainly seem to be seeking to undermine 3PPs, including Paizo. Either bring them under WoTC control via contract, or abandon the OGL and become vulnerable to litigation for copyright infringement.
jgbrowning
Hero
Yes, his commentary is less useful than would be a simple slow-scroll through the entire document. (part of the reason why I dislike video as an information distribution method-the creator of the content is far more front-and-centered than I prefer).
joe b.
Yes, and I think this is the kind of fear & confusion that WotC intended to engender.
Along these lines, from the screen shot of the video we can see this:
This agreement is . . . an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a) which is no longer an authorized license agreement.
So they do say that the existing OGL is not authorised for use by parties to v 1.1, which is as expected.
But they describe v 1.1 as an update, which is unexpected (by me at least), but which seems to fit with the "fear and confusion" strategy: because it immediately raises the question of whether or not a party to v 1.1 can publish OGC under v 1.1. To me it seems that they can't, as they cannot make their OGC available to a 1.0/1.0a licensee on the terms to which that licensee is entitled. But the language of "update" makes this obscure, thus (i) opening up the prospect of dispute among 3PPs over whether they are breaching licence obligations to one another, and thereby (ii) generally reducing the resilience of the 3PP ecosystem.
That seems quite clever!
jgbrowning
Hero
Hrm...I was just told by the phone-in-commentator rent-seeking behavior isn't rent-seeking behavior because he thinks that the point of the rent-seeking is to prevent the growth of large competitors, so yeah...
joe b.
joe b.
Prime_Evil
Adventurer
It is looking like the update mechanism is key to claims WotC can render v1.0a an "unauthorised" version of the license. It is unclear whether they can unilaterally do this, but it seems the aim is to create fear and confusion.
If WoTC had went to a neutral lawyer for advice, I think the advice would be along the lines of:
"It is unlikely that the OGL 1.0 can be revoked. It was clearly intended to be non-revocable.
"However, you can certainly release the updated version of D&D outside the OGL. You can use a new license to do this, as was done in 2008. That will prevent third parties from using material unique to the updated version of D&D."
But instead of a brand new licence, we're seeing this "OGL 1.1" that explicitly claims to be an update, putting it within section 9 of OGL 1.0. And we're seeing an implicit claim that they can somehow revoke 1.0 - they don't seem to have made this claim explicit, but it's clearly what they want readers of 1.1 to think.
OGL 1.1 is a terror weapon, not a weapon designed for maximum legal efficiency. It's an AT-AT not an MBT. In the cause of sowing fear and confusion, it puts WoTC in a significantly worse legal position. A licence drafted to protect WoTC's legal rights and to stand up well in court would look quite different, IMO.
"It is unlikely that the OGL 1.0 can be revoked. It was clearly intended to be non-revocable.
"However, you can certainly release the updated version of D&D outside the OGL. You can use a new license to do this, as was done in 2008. That will prevent third parties from using material unique to the updated version of D&D."
But instead of a brand new licence, we're seeing this "OGL 1.1" that explicitly claims to be an update, putting it within section 9 of OGL 1.0. And we're seeing an implicit claim that they can somehow revoke 1.0 - they don't seem to have made this claim explicit, but it's clearly what they want readers of 1.1 to think.
OGL 1.1 is a terror weapon, not a weapon designed for maximum legal efficiency. It's an AT-AT not an MBT. In the cause of sowing fear and confusion, it puts WoTC in a significantly worse legal position. A licence drafted to protect WoTC's legal rights and to stand up well in court would look quite different, IMO.
Toran Ironfinder
Villager
So here are some questions when it comes to IP and WOTC, I didn't go through every page.
Much of DND's earlier editions were based on rules from wargames, do we know if TSR paid royalties for the use of those rules?
When WOTC acquired TSR, and came out with DND 3.0, they largely abandoned TSR's old rules. Many of the new rules the Player Handbook used bore striking resemblance to rules put forward to competing RPGs, particularly skill based systems, such as those put out by FASA and West End Games, these being TSR's competitors. For example, the presentation of the skills in the SRD with the difficulty class is very similar to the presentation in West End Games Star Wars 2nd expanded and enhanced edition (released prior to DnD 3.0) though that system used difficulty number. The chart changes a few names, and the type of die, but the target numbers on the chart are the same; this is different from the percentile die system 1e and 2e used for thieves or the non-weapon proficiency system used in 2e.
The function of ability scores also changed in a way that was closer to TSR's competitors than it was to the way ability scores functioned in 1e and 2e.
So how much of the IP WOTC is attempting to protect is actually original to WOTC or TSR and how much of it is material they borrowed and adapted from non-TSR games? Were royalties paid then, and are they paid now? If it isn't original to WOTC and TSR, on what basis is it being treated as a trademark?
Also, as games with no roots in DND, such as D6 adopted the OGL, how will this affect those properties, since presumably WOTC can't really claim they are WOTC's intellectual property on any basis? The OGL has functioned as a creative commons, even if it is not distinctly written as such. Does 5e borrow concepts from other creative common's games, and if so, does invalidating the license invalidate 5e's use of those concepts?
Much of DND's earlier editions were based on rules from wargames, do we know if TSR paid royalties for the use of those rules?
When WOTC acquired TSR, and came out with DND 3.0, they largely abandoned TSR's old rules. Many of the new rules the Player Handbook used bore striking resemblance to rules put forward to competing RPGs, particularly skill based systems, such as those put out by FASA and West End Games, these being TSR's competitors. For example, the presentation of the skills in the SRD with the difficulty class is very similar to the presentation in West End Games Star Wars 2nd expanded and enhanced edition (released prior to DnD 3.0) though that system used difficulty number. The chart changes a few names, and the type of die, but the target numbers on the chart are the same; this is different from the percentile die system 1e and 2e used for thieves or the non-weapon proficiency system used in 2e.
The function of ability scores also changed in a way that was closer to TSR's competitors than it was to the way ability scores functioned in 1e and 2e.
So how much of the IP WOTC is attempting to protect is actually original to WOTC or TSR and how much of it is material they borrowed and adapted from non-TSR games? Were royalties paid then, and are they paid now? If it isn't original to WOTC and TSR, on what basis is it being treated as a trademark?
Also, as games with no roots in DND, such as D6 adopted the OGL, how will this affect those properties, since presumably WOTC can't really claim they are WOTC's intellectual property on any basis? The OGL has functioned as a creative commons, even if it is not distinctly written as such. Does 5e borrow concepts from other creative common's games, and if so, does invalidating the license invalidate 5e's use of those concepts?
Similar Threads
