My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[pemerton]

How can you read that sentence in italics and think it means they can deuthorize the ogl 1.0a?

I don't think it means that. I am not saying anything about "deauthorisation". I am saying that at any time WotC can withdraw their offer to license their copyrighted work to all comers. And they never said otherwise.

What affect that decision of theirs would have on the rights of existing licensees under the existing licence is a different question.

I'm serious. I do not understand how you square that.

I'm not sure you are appreciating the difference between offering to enter into a contract with someone and actually entering into a contract with someone.

For about 20 years now WotC has been offering to enter into a contract with me, to license one or more or their SRDs to me on the terms set out in the OGL. But I have never taken up that offer, and am not a party to a licence agreement with them. And I have no right that they keep that offer on foot into the future. (In terms of the FAQ you posted, I'm not one of those they are speaking to who may not like new versions of the OGL. Because I have no licence agreement with them.)

On the other hand, Paizo has been a party to that agreement at least since 2008 or thereabouts. As a result they have contractual rights against WotC. What exactly the content of those rights are is a question of contractual interpretation. There are various possible arguments. I haven't seen any good argument that WotC has a power to bring the contract to an end, or vary its terms, unilaterally. I do think there is a plausible argument, though - not a knock-down one, but not a hopeless one - that the subject matter of Paizo's rights (ie the OGC that WotC has licensed them to use) might itself vary depending on whether or not WotC keeps its offer on foot.

 

[Clint_L]

How can you read that sentence in italics and think it means they can deuthorize the ogl 1.0a? It's literally saying that they can't do that. That if they try to change the terms we can still use the old terms. The thing that wizards is expressly saying now we cannot do.

I'm serious. I do not understand how you square that.

They just explained it. I have trouble wrapping my head around a lot of this, but I'm not a lawyer. I'm certainly not going to argue with them when it comes to reading a contract.

 

[mamba]

This isn't even WotC's argument. They're going with a declaration that the license is "deauthorized". Have any of the lawyers here actually argued for the legality of that specific method?

Nothing to argue, toss a coin. Nothing in the license says what an authorized license is or what a deauthorization process would look like, so your guess is as good as anyone else's

 

[Jer]

I don't think it means that. I am not saying anything about "deauthorisation". I am saying that at any time WotC can withdraw their offer to license their copyrighted work to all comers. And they never said otherwise.

I'm sorry but no. That may be what the legal boil it down to how the law works contract says. Sure. Fine. They can wiggle out of it maybe. Not a lawyer - fine.

But this:

In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

Is very clearly saying that Wizards cannot alter the terms of the deal in a way that is detrimental to to the community's ability to use the srd under a preexisting ogl. So if what you're saying is true then this statement is a misrepresentation of the actual legal document's terms. Or as a layman might say "a lie."

Look I get it. You're saying "law is hard, talk to a lawyer." But they really did represent this as a permanent offering for the last 20+ years. And I'm sure that up until recently they thought they were locked into it too because they would have deauthorized it during 4e if they thought they could have then.

 

[pemerton]

But this:

In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

Is very clearly saying that Wizards cannot alter the terms of the deal in a way that is detrimental to to the community's ability to use the srd under a preexisting ogl.

No it doesn't. The community of people using the OGL is not a reference to the ability of the community to use the SRD. I'm not part of the community of people using the OGL. Changing my ability to enter into a licence with WotC isn't a change to the rights of the community of people using the OGL.

I'm happy to accept that you're not sensitive to the difference in meaning. But it's not the case that what WotC said clearly says what you took it to say.

they really did represent this as a permanent offering for the last 20+ years.

They didn't. I've just shown how your paraphrase of what they said is inaccurate. When what's at stake are the terms of a commercial licence, it's not unreasonable to expect people to read your FAQ accurately.

So if what you're saying is true then this statement is a misrepresentation of the actual legal document's terms. Or as a layman might say "a lie."

What I'm saying is that WotC never said that it would not withdraw the offer. They did say that had no power to unilaterally vary the terms of existing licences. I think that is correct. They are not now clearly saying otherwise, although some of their non-legal statements have flirted a bit with the idea.

In post 2140 of the PSA thread you can see what I think is their best argument for the position they currently assert. It doesn't rely on any spurious notion of "deauthorisation".

 

[Jer]

No it doesn't.

I'm giving up. You haven’t convinced me at all that they aren't being deceptive but you have reminded me why I have a rule about not getting into arguments online with people who get paid to argue for a living

 

[Yaarel]

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.

Dear Australian gamers,

Do that right now. Get a "declaration" to nullify any Hasbo-WotC attempt to "de-authorize".

 

[Minigiant]

Look I get it. You're saying "law is hard, talk to a lawyer." But they really did represent this as a permanent offering for the last 20+ years. And I'm sure that up until recently they thought they were locked into it too because they would have deauthorized it during 4e if they thought they could have then.

Pathfinder happened.

WOTC assumed during 4e, that the community would migrate through editions. But many didn't and the OGL let them move to another game. So bad that they had to go back to the OGL with 5e.

They don't want that to happen with the VTT and other future financial projects.

WOTC should just be honest that it is their fear

 

[tomBitonti]

No it doesn't. The community of people using the OGL is not a reference to the ability of the community to use the SRD. I'm not part of the community of people using the OGL. Changing my ability to enter into a licence with WotC isn't a change to the rights of the community of people using the OGL.

I'm happy to accept that you're not sensitive to the difference in meaning. But it's not the case that what WotC said clearly says what you took it to say.

They didn't. I've just shown how your paraphrase of what they said is inaccurate. When what's at stake are the terms of a commercial licence, it's not unreasonable to expect people to read your FAQ accurately.

What I'm saying is that WotC never said that it would not withdraw the offer. They did say that had no power to unilaterally vary the terms of existing licences. I think that is correct. They are not now clearly saying otherwise, although some of their non-legal statements have flirted a bit with the idea.

In post 2140 of the PSA thread you can see what I think is their best argument for the position they currently assert. It doesn't rely on any spurious notion of "deauthorisation".

A question: Is section 9 (using any authorized license) meaningful other than for new products that use OGC? There is no need to choose a license for existing products. Those seem to have their license already set.

TomB

 

[Iosue]

I've just shown how your paraphrase of what they said is inaccurate. When what's at stake are the terms of a commercial licence, it's not unrIn post 2140 of the PSA thread you can see what I think is their best argument for the position they currently assert. It doesn't rely on any spurious notion of "deauthorisation".

This is why I think the release to CC is a bigger deal than people have been making of it. Even at the limited degree currently announced, it makes D&D truly free, not beholden to SRDs or licenses administrated by Wizards, or the vagaries of court rulings in potential lawsuits. Before it was ostensibly "free," in as much as everyone (including Wizards) bought into Wizards' willingness to license the material and not try any legal chicanery. Now it would be in a perpetual, irrevocable, third-party open license (if Wizards goes through with it), and there's no way Wizards go ever take it back.

Which is not to say that 3PP don't have a legitimate grievance vis-a-vis the body of OGC built up over 23 years.

Pathfinder happened.

WOTC assumed during 4e, that the community would migrate through editions. But many didn't and the OGL let them move to another game. So bad that they had to go back to the OGL with 5e.

I just want to point out that Wizards didn't have to go back to the OGL with 5e. By 2016, 5e was already wildly successful. My speculation has always been that there was, and perhaps still is, a pro-OGL contingent within Wizards, but they couldn't convince the suits to go along with it until they hit upon the idea of the DM's Guild. That created a 3PP environment that kicked back straight to Wizards, making the suits happy, and gave them the cover to release the 5e SRD under the OGL. But then, new suits, new objectives.