Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2

[SoonRaccoon]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet. It looks like the VTT policy is not actually part of the license, it is only referenced by the license. Would this allow WotC to change the VTT policy any time they like?

 

[demoss]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet. It looks like the VTT policy is not actually part of the license, it is only referenced by the license. Would this allow WotC to change the VTT policy any time they like?

Yes.

Ditto for Fan Policy. (Which is already abusive as all, though, so it would be hard to make it worse...)

 

[S'mon]

BTW to all publishers - if you don't already have a website that republishes all the WoTC SRDs with OGL 1.0a, I'd advise doing so. Doing that means you have accepted their offer while it's still open, and you don't have to go get your SRD stuff from a possibly abandoned website/publisher.

Edit: Here's my own publication of SRD 5.0. Thanks for your offer WoTC - I accept!

 

[S'mon]

I've also published on my blog I publish under OGL 1.0

I suggest that as many people as possible do the same with the various SRDs.

 

[MarkB]

I don't think I've seen this mentioned yet. It looks like the VTT policy is not actually part of the license, it is only referenced by the license. Would this allow WotC to change the VTT policy any time they like?

Yes. The VTT policy even states that it's subject to change.

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

Riddle me this, legal minded peope. Suppose that:

In 2022 "Toadstool Games" (TG) published "Forest of Fancy" (Fof), an original RPG where you play intelligent furry animals. TG also publised an SRD for FoF as Open Gaming Content under the OGL 1.0a.

Then in late 2023 "Greenrock Games" (GG) publishes "Sea of Serenity" (SoS), a 3rd party expansion for FoF with rules for aquatic animals. It includes a fair amount of text directly taken from the FoF SRD.

TG then sues GG for copyright infringement, claiming the distributing TG's copyrighted text without a valid licence, as the OGL1.0a was supposedly "deauthorized" by wotc earlier that year. GG doesn't deny copying TG's content, but maintains that their licence is as valid as ever and the "de-authorization" is invalid. GG starts a GoFundMe to cover legal costs and raises enough to hire an expert law firm.

To resolve this the court will have to rule on whether or not the OGL 1.0a has been "deathorized" or not. Will this set precedent in case wotc later starts a similar lawsuit against a 3rd party D&D publisher?

 

[FrogReaver]

BTW to all publishers - if you don't already have a website that republishes all the WoTC SRDs with OGL 1.0a, I'd advise doing so. Doing that means you have accepted their offer while it's still open, and you don't have to go get your SRD stuff from a possibly abandoned website/publisher.

Edit: Here's my own publication of SRD 5.0. Thanks for your offer WoTC - I accept!

Presumably this is because it's legally questionable whether you can sublicense out WOTC's SRD's from another Licensee after they withdraw their offer?

 

[FrogReaver]

Riddle me this, legal minded peope. Suppose that:

In 2022 "Toadstool Games" (TG) published "Forest of Fancy" (Fof), an original RPG where you play intelligent furry animals. TG also publised an SRD for FoF as Open Gaming Content under the OGL 1.0a.

Then in late 2023 "Greenrock Games" (GG) publishes "Sea of Serenity" (SoS), a 3rd party expansion for FoF with rules for aquatic animals. It includes a fair amount of text directly taken from the FoF SRD.

TG then sues GG for copyright infringement, claiming the distributing TG's copyrighted text without a valid licence, as the OGL1.0a was supposedly "deauthorized" by wotc earlier that year. GG doesn't deny copying TG's content, but maintains that their licence is as valid as ever and the "de-authorization" is invalid. GG starts a GoFundMe to cover legal costs and raises enough to hire an expert law firm.

To resolve this the court will have to rule on whether or not the OGL 1.0a has been "deathorized" or not. Will this set precedent in case wotc later starts a similar lawsuit against a 3rd party D&D publisher?

IMO. If they were tried in different jurisdictions, then the precedent might be of little effect. If different arguments were made then the precedent might not even come into play. Also, an initial ruling made by a lower court in a single case may not be principled or persuasive enough to create a precedent going forward.

 

[jgbrowning]

I've also published on my blog I publish under OGL 1.0

I suggest that as many people as possible do the same with the various SRDs.

Today at my blog I've published the Open Gaming Bible II containing open material for fantasy, modern, and future gaming.

(Edit: I have also decided to accept WotC's offer regarding the 5.1 SRD via the 1.0a OGL.)

joe b.

 

[mhd]

I've also published on my blog I publish under OGL 1.0
I suggest that as many people as possible do the same with the various SRDs.

To get this right, this is about spreading the availability of the SRDs, I didn't miss anything about declaring that I publish under 1.0 possibly being beneficial in the future?