D&D 5E Don't Throw 5e Away Because of Hasbro

[mamba]

The statement was that wotc was going to break a law by changing the ogl. Since the ogl was neither a license nor a contract it was never enforceable and not a legally binding document

as I said, patently false, repeating it does no fix that. It is a legally binding contract.

Not even WotC disagrees with that, they just reinterpreted a clause in a way that never was its intent and legally at best dubious. Their best chance of winning was to drag it out until the other party runs out of money, on the merit they were pretty much dead

 

[AlViking]

as I said, patently false, repeating it does no fix that. It is a legally binding contract.

Not even WotC disagrees with that, they just reinterpreted a clause in a way that never was its intent and legally at best dubious. Their best chance of winning was to drag it out until the other party runs out of money, on the merit they were pretty much dead

When you can provide a link to anyone with an understanding of the laws involved that explains how the ogl was a legally binding document please do so. Until then you declaring my understanding as supported by the linked I provided as patently false is meaningless.

 

[mamba]

When you can provide a link to anyone with an understanding of the laws involved that explains how the ogl was a legally binding document please do so.

they exist, didn’t keep links though, so you can google yourself

Ryan Dancey had a lot to say at the time, so include him in the search, some lawyers chimed in too (not in the same videos / articles)

You can start here

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

It’s a lot shorter than other ones I read back then, but it was one of the top results

Until then you declaring my understanding as supported by the linked I provided as patently false is meaningless.

you can stay misinformed if you feel like it. Just going by what the dispute was about already disproves your claim of it not being a contract…

Want me to send you a link to a video why the Earth is actually flat while we are at it?

 

[gban007]

When you can provide a link to anyone with an understanding of the laws involved that explains how the ogl was a legally binding document please do so. Until then you declaring my understanding as supported by the linked I provided as patently false is meaningless.

So the Open Gaming License isn't a license?

 

[AlViking]

they exist, didn’t keep links though, so you can google yourself


you can stay misinformed if you feel like it. Want me to send you a link to a video why the Earth is actually flat while we are at it?

I did a search and the first link I found that actually discussed the legal underpinnings of the ogl supported my understanding that it was never really a legally binding contract or license. If you can't do the same to support your position there's nothing to discuss.

So the Open Gaming License isn't a license?

They can claim anything they want but my understanding has always been that it was not legally binding one way or another. I can write on a piece of paper that the paper is worth a thousand dollars that doesn't make it so even if I could write you a check for that amount. There are legal requirements for a document to be a license just like there are legal requirements for a piece of paper to be a check. If there is proof out there that I am wrong please provide it since I am not a lawyer. I was once surprised by a story that a check written on a piece of scrap wood could be cashed so perhaps my understanding is wrong but just stating that I'm wrong is meaningless.

 

[mamba]

I did a search and the first link I found that actually discussed the legal underpinnings of the ogl supported my understanding that it was never really a legally binding contract or license. If you can't do the same to support your position there's nothing to discuss.

I can link you a video about how the Earth is flat, does that make it so? Just because you found a moron with no idea what they are talking about does not mean you found anything of relevance

They can claim anything they want but my understanding has always been that it was not legally binding one way or another.

then you have always been wrong, it is a binding contract

Just the case that WotC was making already shows that. I can go into some technicalities of why it is and why it is perpetual, but since you need a link I won’t do that. Below is WotC’s FAQ, it might help but I am not expecting much from linking it

FAQ: Open Game License

Pretty long, but hey, you wanted something

Some more, have not watched it yet, no time will do later

Dungeons and Dragons 3rd Edition News

 

[AlViking]

they exist, didn’t keep links though, so you can google yourself

Ryan Dancey had a lot to say at the time, so include him in the search, some lawyers chimed in too (not in the same videos / articles)

You can start here

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

It’s a lot shorter than other ones I read back then, but it was one of the top results


you can stay misinformed if you feel like it. Just going by what the dispute was about already disproves your claim of it not being a contract…

Want me to send you a link to a video why the Earth is actually flat while we are at it?

A check is not a check unless it's signed by the payee. A license requires the specific wording that it is "irrevocable" in order for it to never be changed and Dancey is not a lawyer. It also assumes that companies were using the ogl as anything more the professional courtesy than a legal obligation because it's not a clearcut copyright case.

But this is going nowhere. Even if it was legally binding and not open to change it still doesn't matter because it was not changed.

 

[Morrus]

The statement was that wotc was going to break a law by changing the ogl. Since the ogl was neither a license nor a contract it was never enforceable and not a legally binding document therefore no laws could be broken by changing it. If it had been changed and someone ignored it then it could have gone to court but nobody knows what the outcome of that would have been.

Well you do, apparently.

But the OGL is, indeed a license. And it's not about breaking a 'law' (contracts aren't laws) it's about breaching a contract. These are two very different things.

Fortunately we publishers don't get our legal advice from Google, or people in forum threads, we get it from our actual lawyers.

 

[mamba]

A license requires the specific wording that it is "irrevocable" in order for it to never be changed

no it doesn't, saying it is perpetual means the same thing, because if it could be revoked, it would not be perpetual.

The GPL was phrased the same way, that was the common way to express that at the time, as is backed up by WotC's own FAQ. It's more recently that the word irrevocable has also been added as a convention, and that is the argument WotC wanted to try, but given its own clear statements at the time and the convention of how things were phrased back then would have made this very much an uphill battle for them

It also assumes that companies were using the ogl as anything more the professional courtesy than a legal obligation because it's not a clearcut copyright case.

Even if this were true, how you treat it has no bearing on what it is, and it is not a copyright case anyway, it is a licensing / contract case

Even if it was legally binding and not open to change it still doesn't matter because it was not changed.

it matters when you look at losing trust. You signed a contract and now you want to bully your way out of it, not someone that is deserving of trust

As someone said back then (forgot who), if someone pointed a gun at you, pulled the trigger and it jammed, would you trust them ever again?

 

[Faolyn]

So basically your issue with this is that they contracted someone you didn’t like the reputation of.

Yes. "Lie down with dogs, get up with fleas." They chose to work with people who have done, and continue to do, nasty things in very nasty ways. That's not cool.

It wasn’t that they did anything wrong per se, or that the person was badly treated. Just the reputation alone?

Yes, they did do something wrong. They overreacted in a very bad way.

Because they overreacted and because they decided to hire people who perform harmful and even illegal activities (such spying on people trying to organize unions), it makes them into a company I do not want to give money to.

If the YouTuber in question was harmed, physically or mentally by them, then that would only make it worse. If he was not, it doesn't mean it's OK. It just means that it wasn't as bad as it could have been.

I’m not sure this is the burning injustice you think it is.

Where did I say it was a burning injustice?

I said it was dumb of them.