My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[Aspirinsmurf]

I'm given to understand that a publisher can't proactively go to court to assert that the OGL v1.0a is not revoked, which strikes me as unfortunate. Essentially, they have to keep publishing (new?) OGL v1.0a content after WotC's declared date of revocation, and wait for WotC to take legal action against them. Only then can they assert in court that the license is still in effect.

Oh, they can. But nobody is going to, at least not before this "playtest" thing is over and WotC actually make a decision about what make-believe fairy tale wording they're going to go with to try to convince people that they haven't broken the law.

I suspect the kill-switch will end up in some obscure EULA somewhere (not necessarily a WotC EULA, but like Kickstarter or something), a clause in where you actually agree that the OGL 1.0(a) is "unauthorized" for you to use specifically. I don't think they have much of a case otherwise, and this certainly looks like what they tried to do with the sweetheart deals earlier.

 

[pemerton]

I'm given to understand that a publisher can't proactively go to court to assert that the OGL v1.0a is not revoked, which strikes me as unfortunate

Speaking only from a common law perspective: a publisher could seek a declaration of right. Whether a court would hear that claim and be prepared to issue a declaration would depend both on (i) the rules of the jurisdiction in question, and (ii) how the particular case was pleaded.

But it's not really clear why a publisher would do this.

 

[Steampunkette]

Illegality Clause:

In Russia, it is illegal to portray queer issues and people in a positive light. If I sell a perfectly normal and inclusive book and someone in Russia buys it, I have broken Russian Law and WotC has the authority to terminate my license, even if the law that is broken is utterly evil, exclusive, and draconian. Even if they, too, oppose that law, they now have the ability to completely shut down a 3pp if there's someone on the team who so much as doesn't like me as a person.

That's just unacceptable.

 

[Alzrius]

Speaking only from a common law perspective: a publisher could seek a declaration of right. Whether a court would hear that claim and be prepared to issue a declaration would depend both on (i) the rules of the jurisdiction in question, and (ii) how the particular case was pleaded.

But it's not really clear why a publisher would do this.

Purely for the clarity of everyone reading this thread, some Googling on Australian law turned up the following:

A declaration (sometimes called a declaratory order or declaration of right) is a formal statement from the court that a decision, act or procedure is unlawful. The government will normally comply with the spirit of the decision; the problem is that a declaration is not legally binding.

I'm not sure if this is a thing in the United States.

 

[demoss]

Morality Clause. I would like to hear from people not bothered by it, about a potential future where, say Tencent buys WotC, or a controlling share in Hasbro with pocket change, and starts enforcing their view of what is proper and moral.

I'm picking Tencent because I expect their background might raise eyebrows of those who are cool with Hasbro, not because I think they're somehow specifically worse. (In my eyes they're just bad in a slightly different way.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I suspect that it goes to court and (probably) WotC loses.

joe b.

That's my thought as well. It could be a while before that happens, however.

 

[pemerton]

Purely for the clarity of everyone reading this thread, some Googling on Australian law turned up the following

The remark about "not legally binding" is not really accurate. A declaration of right is an order of the court, like any other: but it does not impose any new obligations on the parties to the suit. It would be better to say that a declaration of right does not generate any further remedial consequences.

But in the circumstance that you described - ie seeking a declaration that a purported revocation or "deauthorisation" by WotC is ineffective, and hence that licence agreements with WotC remain on foot - no further remedy is needed.

 

[Haplo781]

 

[pemerton]

I'm not sure if this is a thing in the United States.

It seems to be: declaratory relief

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Yeah honestly I’d be vaguely okay with it if the wording allowed further development of existing product lines, but even that is probably a breach of contract by wotc.