Cory Doctorow writes about the OGL 1.1

[Greg Benage]

He repeats Kit Walsh's position that if the license doesn't say the magic word "irrevocable," it's revocable.

 

[Art Waring]

He repeats Kit Walsh's position that if the license doesn't say the magic word "irrevocable," it's revocable.

Later open software licenses were updated to include the word irrevocable, but the 1.0a was never updated to keep it safe from exactly what wotc is pulling today. It was a mistake that 3pp's are now paying for.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I'm wondering now if all the companies that in theory went to lawyers to get their T's crossed and I's dotted when producing OGL content could find those attorneys liable if in fact the revocation of the OGL goes through? Is that even a thing? If a lawyer gives you bad advice and you suffer consequences as a result, can you find the lawyer at fault as well?

Generally, no. While it depends on the jurisdiction (if I don't say that, pretend that I do), legal malpractice is a very hard claim to make.

A cynic might say that this is because lawyers make the laws.

 

[overgeeked]

Love Cory so much.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I originally didn’t think they would, but at this point I’d be surprised if the EFF didn’t weigh in at some point.

They already did, it is posted in this forum

 

[Dausuul]

I don't know much about Cory Doctorow, but that thread certainly does not leave me with a positive impression.

He presents the situation as if everything has a cut and dried answer and the law here is settled and clear, when it's anything but. Much of the value of the OGL was precisely that it brought clarity to this stuff: You can do X, you can't do Y.

I'm not seeing any 3PPs heaving a sigh of relief and saying, "At last we're free of the OGL!" And I really don't think it's because they're all ignorant legal naifs.

 

[eyeheartawk]

He makes a good point that the OGL never did allow you to use anything that you, in theory, weren't allowed to use anyway via copyright law.

But, nobody wanted to prove it in court and it's a simple thing to include, so safe harbor it became.

We just assumed that the good faith would continue and it wouldn't be turned into a mousetrap.

We were wrong.

 

[ersatzphil]

They already did, it is posted in this forum

Do people around here sleep!?

/s.

 

[Greg Benage]

He presents the situation as if everything has a cut and dried answer and the law here is settled and clear, when it's anything but. Much of the value of the OGL was precisely that it brought clarity to this stuff: You can do X, you can't do Y.

I'm grateful for his voice on these issues, but he's an idealist who tends not to grapple with these kinds of practical realities. He's just focused on changing the practical realities.

 

[Charlaquin]

This is a pretty awful take, to be frank. First off, he ignores the fact that the OGL was originally written based on the same open software licenses he praises, “irrevocable” just wasn’t used in those licenses at the time. Now, should the OGL have been updated to include that word when software licenses started doing so? Yeah, no doubt. But, that context is relevant and I think it’s pretty disingenuous to disregard it and just say “if the magic word, ‘irrevocable’ isn’t in it, it’s revocable.” Second, it’s true that in theory the OGL doesn’t give you the right to anything you didn’t already have the rights to, this ignores the fact that not every publisher is prepared to defend their work under fair use if WotC did decide to go after them. It’s not at all clear where mechanics end and presentation begins, and the OGL provided security for those who didn’t want to risk having to hash that out in court.