The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...

[dave2008]

I'll hope you are right, but I cannot imagine a world where I get to wake up as optimistic as you appear to be.

It is more pragmatism than optimism. I see no value in burning things before they should be set on fire.

 

[ilgatto]

OGL 1.0(a) is a weak and out of date agreement. (...)

There must be a new agreement, whether that's ORC or Creative Commons or some good faith attempt at a new OGL by WOTC (and 1.2 is NOT a good faith attempt.) The new agreement must guarantee the licenses of already published works, and provide a perpetual, irrevocable, royalty free license for future works without draconian back doors such as the morality and severance clauses in 1.2.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OGL1.0(a) already do what you suggest the new OGL should do?

 

[mamba]

I never said that. But if you will, I speculate:
If WotC loses too much goodwill, they might get deperate and try to shoot again and again and again and lose even more. Which means, they try to sell bad game supplements and will lose more goodwill. Books remain on the shelves. New books tank. Good bye.

I was not asking what scenario you envision could lead to WotC’s downfall. I was talking about our analogy. So basically WotC can only win here according to you, i.e. get what they wanted all along at minimal losses to them but large losses to the 3pp. Is that about correct?

 

[mamba]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OGL1.0(a) already do what you suggest the new OGL should do?

this can only be determined by a court at this time it seems. That is certainly what WotC promised back then

 

[Micah Sweet]

I

Yes, but they have already committed to that so I didn't include it. I guess we have to wait and see, but they said that was the plan in the OGL 1.2 FAQ. They are also planning to put more editions into CC per the FAQ.

Thought the 1.2 only mentioned the 5.1 SRD. All the others are still in question.

 

[Dausuul]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OGL1.0(a) already do what you suggest the new OGL should do?

We thought it did, until suddenly it didn't.

As @Snarf Zagyg pointed out (I think in a different thread), this marks the first time the original OGL has been put to the test. And it has, unfortunately, failed that test. The OGL should make it crystal clear that there is no backing out or "de-authorizing." It should explain in detail how sub-licenses work. Et cetera.

Now that Wizards is actively attacking it, we're discovering a lot of questions about exactly how the OGL works, and the mere existence of such questions means it has failed at its fundamental task: To provide clarity and certainty in the ominous fog of copyright law.

For the immediate future, I think "leave the OGL 1.0a alone" is a good rallying cry. If Wizards actually does that (very unlikely), we can get off their case. But over the long term, we really do need a better-drafted replacement.

 

[mamba]

As @Snarf Zagyg pointed out (I think in a different thread), this marks the first time the original OGL has been put to the test. And it has, unfortunately, failed that test. The OGL should make it crystal clear that there is no backing out or "de-authorizing." It should explain in detail how sub-licenses work. Et cetera.

just to be clear, it failed in that everyone scattered into the winds instead of saying 'see you in court'. The license itself would probably prevail if anyone did.

Also, I do not want them to leave 1.0a alone, I want them to fix the flaws that were discovered and release a 1.0b that fixes them. I am not even sure these are flaws in the original design, it is more that contract wording has been updated since the license was written, so it is now common practice to include the word irrevocable whereas in 2000 that was not the case (perpetual implied irrevocable, because you cannot be revocable and perpetual).

 

[ThorinTeague]

I'm hearing the conversation from industry people and 3pp's beginning to shift from speculating about the legality or lack thereof of "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a to how to get 3pp's organized and start prepping for legal action.

WoTC must back down on "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a. They are set on a disastrous course. This is not going to end well for anybody. Back down ASAP, WoTC.

 

[Haplo781]

just to be clear, it failed in that everyone scattered into the winds instead of saying 'see you in court'. The license itself would probably prevail if anyone did.

Also, I do not want them to leave 1.0a alone, I want them to fix the flaws that were discovered and rlease a 1.0b that fixes them. Also, I am not sure they are flaws in the original design, it is more that contract wording has been updated since the license was written, so it is now common practice to now include the word irrevocable whereas in 2000 that was not the case (perpetual implied irrevocable, because you cannot be revocable and perpetual).

The license hasn't been deauthorized so there's nothing to go to court over yet.

 

[mamba]

The license hasn't been deauthorized so there's nothing to go to court over yet.

that is not how this works. WotC has to be the one suing, everyone else simply needs to keep on using it