Electronic Freedom Foundation weighs in on the OGL!

[BMaC]

They are a HEAVY HITTER.
IANAL but the tl;dr appears to be: Hasbro can revoke OGL 1.0a, but also that publishers can write D&D compatible material without it but may get sued by Hasbro.

Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D’s Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators

The company that owns Dungeons and Dragons (D&D) is planning to revoke the open license that has, since the year 2000, applied to a wide range of unofficial, commercial products that build on the mechanics of the game.

www.eff.org

 

[dave2008]

Unfortunately they agree it can be revoked. However, they have a fairly conservative idea of what is actually copyrightable and believe you can probably use most of the D&D game without the OGL, possibly more than you can with it!

EDIT: Evidently they updated the article to clarify it can't be revoked based on some contract law IIRC.

 

[Dausuul]

It's a fairly superficial look at the situation -- everything has been hashed over on these forums in much greater detail. For instance, "It’s possible that Wizards of the Coast made other promises or statements that will let the beneficiaries of the license argue that they can’t revoke it" glosses over one of the key issues: Can Wizards swear up and down for 20 years that the license is forever, in multiple FAQs and statements both official and unofficial, and then turn around and say, "Just kidding?"

And, sadly, it does not suggest that the EFF sees anything relevant enough to its own work that it would consider intervening.

It does put the matter in front of a bunch more eyeballs, though.

 

[TerraDave]

This was posted in one of the other threads. I thought it was very interesting.

Maybe the OGL will go. But maybe we shouldn’t care so much if it does.

 

[Jasperak]

I was hoping it would have been a more shot across to bow to WOTC, but I got more of the, 'You'all should have understood what you've gotten yourself into' vibe from it. It doesn't seem like they care if it gets to the courts and then there's a precedent against openness.

 

[bedir than]

EFF tldr "it was never an open license"

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

It's a fairly superficial look at the situation -- everything has been hashed over on these forums in much greater detail. For instance, "It’s possible that Wizards of the Coast made other promises or statements that will let the beneficiaries of the license argue that they can’t revoke it" glosses over one of the key issues: Can Wizards swear up and down for 20 years that the license is forever, in multiple FAQs and statements both official and unofficial, and then turn around and say, "Just kidding?"

And, sadly, it does not suggest that the EFF sees anything relevant enough to its own work that it would consider intervening.

It does put the matter in front of a bunch more eyeballs, though.

In fairness, a lot of what has been hashed over in these threads in more detail has .... not been super helpful or persuasive.

Lots of wishcasting and doomcasting, and not very much acknowledgment that this isn't an easy issue with easy answers. People want someone (anyone) to say, "This is the way it is."

That's not going to happen.

ETA- Or more correctly, anytime someone does say that, you should be beyond skeptical.

 

[Dausuul]

In fairness, a lot of what has been hashed over in these threads in more detail has .... not been super helpful or persuasive.

Lots of wishcasting and doomcasting, and not very much acknowledgment that this isn't an easy issue with easy answers. People want someone (anyone) to say, "This is the way it is."

That's not going to happen.

ETA- Or more correctly, anytime someone does say that, you should be beyond skeptical.

True. I do think it is possible to read these threads and come away with a much deeper understanding of the whole thing than you get from that article. However, this requires paying close attention to who appears to be an actual lawyer (or law professor), and ignoring anything said by anyone not on that list.

And then you have to reconcile the different positions taken by all those legal experts, and realize that the best you can hope for is to understand the issues in play. When those issues are laid before a judge, and the judge adds them all up, nobody can say for sure what sum the judge will arrive at.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

True. I do think it is possible to read these threads and come away with a much deeper understanding of the whole thing than you get from that article. However, this requires paying close attention to who appears to be an actual lawyer (or law professor), and ignoring anything said by anyone not on that list.

And then you have to reconcile the different positions taken by all those legal experts, and realize that the best you can hope for is to understand the issues in play. When those issues are laid before a judge, and the judge adds them all up, nobody can say for sure what sum the judge will arrive at.

Eh, it's deeper than that.

A big problem is that people who aren't lawyers don't really, truly, fully understand the jurisdictional issue. So if you have a Canadian legal professional and a legal professional in the UK, they are unlikely to get to a consensus, let alone if you toss in an American attorney. And America is even further complicated because our states can have very different rules in different states (what we might refer to as the "majority rule" and otherwise) and contract law is inherently a function of state law in the United States. And all of this is even before you get into the interplay of intellectual property (which often, but not always, in an issue of federal law in the United States) and equitable issues ... not to mention how different jurisdiction treat equity!

It can be helpful to hear a lot of the different perspectives, but it's also hard to evaluate some of the analysis simply because there are also a lot of understandings and assumptions that underlie the analysis that isn't provided.

 

[Shiroiken]

Unfortunately they agree it can be revoked. However, they have a fairly conservative idea of what is actually copyrightable and believe you can probably use most of the D&D game without the OGL, possibly more than you can with it!

The question is more about the cost/benefit ratio of trying to do it. EFF has a lot of really good positions, but unfortunately the legal system has a cost associated to it. WotC can use its position to bully almost every small content creator into submission simply by filing and then delaying with procedural maneuvers until the creator is broke (TSR did this a lot back in the day). Unless a class action lawsuit or other legal challenge puts forward a clear precedent, what is legally right doesn't change what will actually happen.