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

[Snarf Zagyg]

I kind of think that's an even weaker claim by them, since the licenses they granted include the right & duty to re-license all OGC on the same terms. If the old OGL 1.0a licences are valid, then that term is valid, too!

Edit: They're not claiming to revoke a perpetual licence. They're claiming to alter the terms of the licence post acceptance. That seems an obvious no-no.

I disagree, and I view it more in terms of using the contractual language not to revoke a license, but to revoke the offer of the license by no longer offering a license others can use. It's a notable, and salient difference- and one supported in cases I've seen.

What I do know is this- there has been substantial review of this by legal; given that we do not have access to what they have, I tend to think that they have developed something colorable. It's not like Hasbro doesn't pay for good IP attorneys.

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?

Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

 

[The Stray]

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

Oh, that's enough. The biggest competition D&D has is itself, as proven by Pathfinder during 4e. They're keen to avoid a repeat of that and sieze control they already explicitly gave away.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?

Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

Part of the problem is that you can't really have an open license that provides for a large amount of licensor control. That's the tough nut to crack.

As soon as you begin providing discretion to the licensor to unilaterally terminate the license (and presumably, sublicenses based off of that) for reasons that are discretionary, the more likely you are to get caught up in serious issues ... what constitutes "offensive stuff," for instance. That's why you see open licenses in the world of software, but less so in the world of brands. Brands prefer to license more selectively, and retain control.

 

[masdog]

3. There isn't a lot of caselaw specifically dealing with the issue, and most of it is rather muddled by other issues and by appellate judges who aren't tremendously well-versed on the issue. So you have only a limited number of cases, that usually touch on the issue in passing, and often touch on it poorly.

So this is basically uncharted territory... And no one knows what rocks you could crash into...

I have another thread I did today about why litigation in America is so expensive. But even if this goes to litigation, there still might not be solid answers.

I was referring to the possibility that IF this went as far as litigation, any wins might be pyrrhic victories with regards to IP rights like the GW case that was referenced in this thread

I hope that's coming across clearly...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Part of the problem is that you can't really have an open license that provides for a large amount of licensor control. That's the tough nut to crack.

As soon as you begin providing discretion to the licensor to unilaterally terminate the license (and presumably, sublicenses based off of that) for reasons that are discretionary, the more likely you are to get caught up in serious issues ... what constitutes "offensive stuff," for instance. That's why you see open licenses in the world of software, but less so in the world of brands. Brands prefer to license more selectively, and retain control.

The interesting thing here is, despite all the huffing and puffing from WotC, the OGL 1.0a is ABSOLUTELY NOT a brand licence.

The only reason D&D can be used with it at all is that WotC voluntarily (on two entirely separate occasions!) made SRDs and declared them OGC for the purpose of the OGL 1.0a.

But the OGL 1.0a itself has nothing to do with any brand apart from WotC (which isn't really a brand like D&D or MtG is) and even then it's quite distant.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So this is basically uncharted territory... And no one knows what rocks you could crash into...

In general, yes. More importantly, almost everything is incredibly difficult to parse or provide anything more than an underbaked opinion largely formulated from hot air until we see the complaint that triggers litigation.

Because then we'll know:
1. The forum (what law applies).
2. The facts (the contract(s) and allegations).
3. The claims (what Hasbro's legal theory is, and what claims can be made).
4. The defendant(s).

Specificity is the soul of narrative, but also of the ability to analyze any possible litigation.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

The interesting thing here is, despite all the huffing and puffing from WotC, the OGL 1.0a is ABSOLUTELY NOT a brand licence.

The only reason D&D can be used with it at all is that WotC voluntarily (on two entirely separate occasions!) made SRDs and declared them OGC for the purpose of the OGL 1.0a.

But the OGL 1.0a itself has nothing to do with any brand apart from WotC (which isn't really a brand like D&D or MtG is) and even then it's quite distant.

Right! So one (of many) approaches that Hasbro might be taking is to simply "de-authorize" (via OGL sec. 9) the particular OGL that allowed for the use of the OGC that we call the SRD.

Until we see the exact legal approach they are taking, it's all guesswork.

 

[jgbrowning]

The only reason D&D can be used with it at all is that WotC voluntarily (on two entirely separate occasions!) made SRDs and declared them OGC for the purpose of the OGL 1.0a.

There are more WotC SRDs than two.

1) Original 3.0
2) 3.5
3) Epic rules SRD
4) Psionic rules SRD
5) Modern SRD
6) 5.0 SRD
7) 5.1 SRD

joe b.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

There are more WotC SRDs than two.

1) Original 3.0
2) 3.5
3) Epic rules SRD
4) Psionic rules SRD
5) Modern SRD
6) 5.0 SRD
7) 5.1 SRD

joe b.

I know, I was treating those as essentially two "blossoms" of SRDs. But I appreciate the specificity.