We All Won – The OGL Three Years Later

[Ondath]

The one actual lawyer I recall weighing in, Devin "Legal Eagle" Stone, said he believed Wizards likely had the right to pull the OGL. The main reason was that it used the word "perpetual" rather than "irrevocable", and "perpetual" generally means "until further notice" rather than "forever" in legalese.

As much as I like Devin's work elsewhere, I also recall that he had formed his opinion mostly by looking at a legal podcast that weighed in on the issue in a way that was pointlessly aggressive towards Lin Codega, who broke the initial OGL story, and got many of their facts about how the OGL was designed and works wrong. So while Devin probably knows more than me on US Law, I'd say his account was missing some key facts about how that law specifically connected to the OGL, and he was informed by sources that were in my opinion rather weird in their aggression towards the pro-OGL crowd.

 

[Umbran]

That’s not the argument though. The argument as I understand it is that in trying to make a near-monopoly they then exercise undue market power on the industry. If — and it’s a big if — industry wide consumer acceptance of a product is reliant on an invitation from the market leader, that’s a problem.

Yeah, I understand that.

However, I don't think the word "evil" should be bandied about unless you can bring the receipts.

 

[Reynard]

As much as I like Devin's work elsewhere, I also recall that he had formed his opinion mostly by looking at a legal podcast that weighed in on the issue in a way that was pointlessly aggressive towards Lin Codega, who broke the initial OGL story, and got many of their facts about how the OGL was designed and works wrong. So while Devin probably knows more than me on US Law, I'd say his account was missing some key facts about how that law specifically connected to the OGL, and he was informed by sources that were in my opinion rather weird in their aggression towards the pro-OGL crowd.

Yeah, I love Legal Eagle, but that video was very obviously meant to capitalize on a niche concern and might not have bene the most throroughly reseached.

 

[SlyFlourish]

For me it’s not a question of trust. A contract (a license is a contract) means I don’t need to worry about that. I’ve read the OGL a thousand times. I’ve spoken to the architect of it dozens of times. I’ve spoken to the lawyers who wrote it (and am represented by them!) I am confident that I am safe using it, and that it cannot be rescinded. And defending that is something I would be willing to do. So for me, trust doesn’t come into it. We continue to use it, and the two other licenses, simply because we want to make access to our content as convenient as possible.

I’d read a new OGL and act based on what it said based on the legal advice I received. Trust just wouldn’t be a factor.

That's a totally fair take. I'd argue that if one doesn't trust the old OGL, I can't imagine being willing to trust a new one. If someone's already shown that they're willing to act in bad faith on an existing contract, I wouldn't be willing to accept a new contract from them.

 

[Morrus]

That's a totally fair take. I'd argue that if one doesn't trust the old OGL, I can't imagine being willing to trust a new one. If someone's already shown that they're willing to act in bad faith on an existing contract, I wouldn't be willing to accept a new contract from them.

But I do trust the old OGL. It's a legal document, and I am confident that I and my lawyers understand it.

Trusting WotC? That’s another thing. They’ve demonstrated bad faith, I agree. They tried to worm their way out of a contract. And I have to assume that if it were in their interests to do so, they would do so again. But you have written for them and we both know many people who have also done so. That involves a contract which requires them to pay you for specified work. Would you work for them again? I am assuming the answer is yes.

I just think you have to live your life and run your businesses according to the words on the page. The letter of the contract(s) or licenses. That’s what they’re there for. Otherwise, why have them? And if somebody breaches that contract, as happens in life, you have a legal position to take. If you’re not prepared to defend your side of a contract, you may as well not have a contract.

 

[Nord Ronnoc]

IMO, anyone who trust WoTC at this point in time, is setting themselves up to be screwed.

But you would trust AI?

 

[Nord Ronnoc]

But I do trust the old OGL. It's a legal document, and I am confident that I and my lawyers understand it.

Trusting WotC? That’s another thing. They’ve demonstrated bad faith, I agree. They tried to worm their way out of a contract. And I have to assume that if it were in their interests to do so, they would do so again. But you have written for them and we both know many people who have also done so. That involves a contract which requires them to pay you for specified work. Would you work for them again? I am assuming the answer is yes.

I just think you have to live your life and run your businesses according to the words on the page. The letter of the contract(s) or licenses. That’s what they’re there for. Otherwise, why have them? And if somebody breaches that contract, as happens in life, you have a legal position to take. If you’re not prepared to defend your side of a contract, you may as well not have a contract.

The CC can't be revoked by any measures compared to the OGL. That's the thing here.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The one actual lawyer I recall weighing in, Devin "Legal Eagle" Stone, said he believed Wizards likely had the right to pull the OGL. The main reason was that it used the word "perpetual" rather than "irrevocable", and "perpetual" generally means "until further notice" rather than "forever" in legalese.

There were several others, and Stone was hemming and hawing a bit because he wasn't certain, which is reasonable. Also it would not play out identically in all jurisdictions (the OGL 1.0a doesn't specify a jurisdiction), which would have complicated matters further. Also like, when a US lawyer says "likely", they don't mean "85%+%, they mean like, 55-65%, at least in my long experience at an international corporate law firm. Which is sketchy for everyone involved.

 

[Morrus]

The CC can't be revoked by any measures compared to the OGL. That's the thing here.

The OGL can't be revoked either. That was always the point.

 

[cranberry]

But you would trust AI?

Apples and elephants