Can WotC be forgiven?

[S'mon]

That is what I had thought, and was referring to. They can revoke their offer to license.

Yes. But this has no real effect, because existing contractual parties retain the right and obligation to sub-licence WoTC OGC (along with everyone else's OGC).

WoTC's legal argument appears to hinge on Section 9 and the word 'authorised'. But their argument appears to be so weak, that I can't think of how to set it as a Contract problem question for my PG Law students - and I've been trying! The words that come to my mind are stuff like 'laughable' and 'ridiculous'. Now I'm sure their lawyers could put together some kind of an argument to present in court. But it seems incredibly easy for the other side to shoot holes in it. This seems more like a threat intended to terrorise the 3PP community, not something intended ever to see the light of a courtroom.

Edit: And Lisa Stevens/Paizo are clearly aware of this. And Lisa at least has the deep pockets to defend and almost certainly win any action brought by WoTC on this.

 

[clearstream]

I didn't like or trust them before, there is nothing to forgive. They are not making optimal moves for their own benefit, but that's a WotC problem, not mine.

I didn't and don't know the individuals forming the corporation. So I cannot say whether they are likeable or trustworthy. My experience with folk in corporations is that overwhelmingly, as individuals they are likeable and trustworthy. Not all are, however, and additionally I notice corporations implementing processes designed to dilute human empathy and generosity. For example, by making decisions with selected collectives or at removes from where the harm falls, and by promoting attention to some considerations and stifling attention to others.

But then, there are many designers of indie RPGs who I do not know, but who perhaps have moral standpoints I would deplore.

Moral behaviour, to my mind, is not most acutely what we might imagine doing... but what we in fact do. Here, the company imagined a change to their licence. What I want to see is what they in fact do. The community has for decades gone along with the owners of the D&D IP making or implying claims to rights that to me they have tenuous claim to. I think in doing so, the community has worsened its own position should the matters come to court. Hence, I do not feel any new motivatation toward handwringing.

 

[pemerton]

WoTC's legal argument appears to hinge on Section 9 and the word 'authorised'. But their argument appears to be so weak, that I can't think of how to set it as a Contract problem question for my PG Law students - and I've been trying! The words that come to my mind are stuff like 'laughable' and 'ridiculous'. Now I'm sure their lawyers could put together some kind of an argument to present in court. But it seems incredibly easy for the other side to shoot holes in it. This seems more like a threat intended to terrorise the 3PP community, not something intended ever to see the light of a courtroom.

I've bolded the sentence that I particularly agree with - I haven't even actually seen the beginnings of a legal argument from WotC's side. The best version of their argument I've seen has been @DavyGreenwind's, and for the reasons set out in his thread - and that you and I have discussed in various context over the past 10 or so years - I have significant doubts as to its merits.

I notice corporations implementing processes designed to dilute human empathy and generosity. For example, by making decisions with selected collectives or at removes from where the harm falls, and by promoting attention to some considerations and stifling attention to others.

If you are interested in a scholarly treatment of this phenomenon, I can recommend Scott Veitch, Law and Irresponsibility.

 

[Aldarc]

The OGL 1.0a and OGL 1.1 both have giant black spots on them at this point. I almost think that it would be better if the OGL 1.0a was revoked, maybe at a pre-established, public date in the future. Instead of dancing around the OGL 1.0a and hoping that "irrevocable" gets added, let it die. At this point, trying to preserve the OGL 1.0a feels like trying to preserve a toxic marriage. Let WotC go its way with OGL 2.0 and let the rest of the community go its own way with ORC, CC, or whatever other licenses they choose to use.

 

[Jadeite]

The OGL 1.0a and OGL 1.1 both have giant black spots on them at this point.

In the case of the OGL 1.0, it's more like a tiny, glowing, red laser dot on its forehead.

 

[pemerton]

The OGL 1.0a and OGL 1.1 both have giant black spots on them at this point. I almost think that it would be better if the OGL 1.0a was revoked, maybe at a pre-established, public date in the future. Instead of dancing around the OGL 1.0a and hoping that "irrevocable" gets added, let it die. At this point, trying to preserve the OGL 1.0a feels like trying to preserve a toxic marriage. Let WotC go its way with OGL 2.0 and let the rest of the community go its own way with ORC, CC, or whatever other licenses they choose to use.

In my view this is a far from ideal proposal for anyone who wants to publish D&D-adjacent content.

The point of the OGL is that it authorises publication, under licence from WotC, of content over which WotC might otherwise have a claim for copyright infringement. The community can't licence itself into copyright infringement via ORC or anything else. And without a licence, any dispute between WotC and a 3PP gets fought out on (what seems to me to be) the much more complicated field of copyright law, rather than the relatively straightforward field of contract law. And that complexity makes WotC's greater pool of resources to fund litigation even more advantageous.

Of course if 3PPs think they can publish, and licence among themselves, a non-D&D adjacent game then good luck to them. Though given how often I've read on these boards about the futility of looking to any RPG other than D&D to gain significant market share, that would be a slightly surprising scenario!

 

[Aldarc]

In the case of the OGL 1.0, it's more like a tiny, glowing, red laser spot on its forehead.

It's a matter of perspective. WotC/Hasbro likely does see the OGL 1.0a as a black spot.

In my view this is a far from ideal proposal for anyone who wants to publish D&D-adjacent content.

The point of the OGL is that it authorises publication, under licence from WotC, of content over which WotC might otherwise have a claim for copyright infringement. The community can't licence itself into copyright infringement via ORC or anything else. And without a licence, any dispute between WotC and a 3PP gets fought out on (what seems to me to be) the much more complicated field of copyright law, rather than the relatively straightforward field of contract law. And that complexity makes WotC's greater pool of resources to fund litigation even more advantageous.

Of course if 3PPs think they can publish, and licence among themselves, a non-D&D adjacent game then good luck to them. Though given how often I've read on these boards about the futility of looking to any RPG other than D&D to gain significant market share, that would be a slightly surprising scenario!

We will see since Kobold Press's "Black Flag Project" will likely be under ORC.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's a matter of perspective. WotC/Hasbro likely does see the OGL 1.0a as a black spot.


We will see since Kobold Press's "Black Flag Project" will likely be under ORC.

Anyone can make an open lecence it's if the punters are willing to buy the product.

 

[Nebulous]

Create a walled garden that no one is willing to join with their current strategy or go try to go back to the previous status quo with the realization that they vastly overpaid for an online character sheet.

Lol! They did didn't they? DDB is just a fancy online character sheet.

 

[Nebulous]

It would have been official by now if not for the reception though...

Exactly. Those "Drafts" weren't drafts: they were sent out with NDAs and contracts to sign. You don't send out an official document as a "draft" with a contract attached.