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

[mamba]

that sound intresting... could you give an example? What could they lose (other then the OGL becoming permanent non revocable)?

they could e.g. claim that using their 6 ability scores to represent a chars abilities is copyrighted, and lose that (they probably would, if they did). That their chromatic and metallic dragons with their specific colors and breath weapons are copyrighted, and lose that (less clear, I lean towards no, but ultimately no one knows and IANAL).

Each one is independently evaluated, and whatever they lose, everyone can use, whatever they win, no one can. Ultimately we get a much clearer picture of what WotC actually has copyright of and what is just generic stuff that everyone can use because it is too broad / too generic, like HP, Armor Class, classes, races, levels, ... they might end up holding an almost empty bag. This could essentially decide that other than their IP, they actually own nothing at all (very unlikely however).

 

[mamba]

Yeah, we know, but note that the most critical legal point was never decided, and Google still had to appeal to SCOTUS, which costs, you know, 8 or 10 million dollars by the time you get done with the trial and 2 levels of earlier appeals, minimum! They went to trial on a principle that was assumed open and shut for 70 years and lost multiple times. ONLY the fact that they are a massive money machine allowed them to, sort of, prevail. Even then they stopped doing the thing that got them sued in the first place. Pyrrhus would be proud of you!

yeah, that was horrendously decided by subject illiterate judges. No case is so bulletproof that a moron in a robe cannot have you snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Quite frankly, if this is the law and the judge ruled correctly, the law needs changing yesterday.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

That their chromatic and metallic dragons with their specific colors and breath weapons are copyrighted, and lose that (less clear, I lean towards no, but ultimately no one knows and IANAL).

They will definitely lose that too, but I think it's unlikely they'd even try that claim, because even if they won it, they'd probably get sued by Blizzard or someone like that who do not believe WotC own that.

Each one is independently evaluated, and whatever they lose, everyone can use, whatever they win, no one can.

Yup. This is why they will probably seek to avoid that.

But they're kinda nuts so maybe not lol?

 

[mamba]

I’m sorry if I’ve missed it somewhere in this thread, but a couple of posters have mentioned that the GPL 2.0 has been held to be irrevocable despite saying only that it was perpetual. Does anyone know what case(s) decided this issue?

I think this is somewhere in the mess that was SCO vs IBM

EDIT: this also seems relevant

"See Carson v. Dynegy, Inc., 344 F.3d 446, 452 (5th Cir. 2003) (“Assuming, arguendo, that a nonexclusive license was created, whether such a license was irrevocable rests solely with whether [the plaintiff] received consideration.”). See also I.A.E., Inc. v. Shaver, 74 F.3d 768, 775–76 (7th Cir. 1996) (discussing the existence of explicit and implied non-exclusive non-contractual licenses)."

“A non-exclusive copyright license (such as most FOSS licenses) can be revoked at any time only if there was no consideration involved. The United States Federal Circuit Court of Appeal took this on in Jacobsen v. Katzer in 2008 and ruled that there is consideration exchanged in the use of FOSS by a licensee. This indicates that an FOSS license that's silent on revocation is likely revocable only for violation of it's conditions”

 

[mamba]

They will definitely lose that too, but I think it's unlikely they'd even try that claim, because even if they won it, they'd probably get sued by Blizzard or someone like that who do not believe WotC own that.

No idea, IANAL (and even they do not really know ), saw a video where someone was using this as an example for something that is not clear. It's not like you cannot have a blue dragon with lightening and a red with fire, for him it was the aggregate that might cross the line into artistic expression, which then is copyrightable

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They will definitely lose that too, but I think it's unlikely they'd even try that claim, because even if they won it, they'd probably get sued by Blizzard or someone like that who do not believe WotC own that.

IS there a place that Gary and Crew stole that idea from? I always think of the metallic and chromatic Dragons and the 'color coded alignment' was just a D&D thing...

 

[Thomas Shey]

IS there a place that Gary and Crew stole that idea from? I always think of the metallic and chromatic Dragons and the 'color coded alignment' was just a D&D thing...

My guess would be just extrapolating out from the fact they had their fire-breathing dragon being red; it was easy to associate most of the other colors with their breath weapons (if anything, the blue was the biggest reach.)

 

[MonsterEnvy]

According to one of the main leakers Cynthia Williams is not responsible for any of the OGL stuff

 

[Azzy]

According to one of the main leakers Cynthia Williams is not responsible for any of the OGL stuff

This is what I figured. But people with certain attributes make for great targets, unfortunately.

 

[Staffan]

According to one of the main leakers Cynthia Williams is not responsible for any of the OGL stuff

In that case, Dan Rawson seems like the likely culprit. Chris Cocks was CEO of Wizards from 2016 until recently, and I'm thinking that if this was his work he'd have done it sooner.