Search results

This is my (perhaps flawed) understanding of a response to me from @Steel_Wind in that thread. The blog post states: "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." I argued that my previously published content can "always be...

It definitely seems as though "deauthorization" is their approach, rather than revocation of the license.

The good news is, they can (under this theory) deauthorize future works without revoking the license. The bad news is, they can (under this theory) deauthorize some or all of whatever agreement they make next. The worse news, if I'm reading @Steel_Wind correctly, is that Wizards could state...

Okay, thank you for the explainer.

This is basically what I assumed anyway, and I'm fine with it. I don't want the game designed by "the community."

Where is this language? Is it in the text of OGL 2? Fine, I don't have to agree to those terms. Is it a tweet? A blog post on D&D Beyond? Is it a Proclamation? What is the legal vehicle? I think everyone agrees it's the easiest thing in the world to include some kind of "grandfather clause" in...

Is that right? All I can find for a legal definition is, "Revocation is an annulment or cancellation of a statement or agreement." Assuming you're a lawyer, could you clarify this for me?

Where will they say that? They can't put it in the terms of OGL 1.0a. They can put it in the terms of OGL 2, but then publishers can simply ignore it? Where do they say it. Is it a tweet? They need to tell us, because then we'll know how they plan to violate their agreement.

Man he explicitly says that existing content will continue to be licensed under OGL 1.0a. Existing content cannot be licensed under OGL 1.0a if there is no OGL 1.0a.

Yes. They have to revoke the license. So when the statement says, "That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a," the statement is either in error or deceitful.

How do they make this true without revoking or deauthorizing OGL 1.0a, which they explicitly say they are not doing? They can say it in the new license, but I don't have to agree to the terms of that license. If OGL 1.0a still exists, where do they tell me I can't continue to publish under it?

No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.

I honestly don't know what their position is at this point, which seems like a problem. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about...

Because unless they can convince people that they're position on revocability isn't just, "We don't think we have much of a case, but we're confident we can lawfare publishers into submission," no publisher is going to sign up to accept their next offer, regardless of its language. Right?

Honestly, this is the most discouraged I've been about this fiasco since the first leak. They won't even mention revocability, let alone actually discuss it. It seems clear Hasbro has drawn a line in the sand, and if that's the case, there's not going to be any satisfactory resolution to this.

I'll accept 1.0a with no bigotry, no blockchain and irrevocable (others won't). But they still need to explain how and why they think they can revoke or deauthorize OGL 1.0a. Continuing to ignore the core problem isn't helping them, and people aren't just going to forget about it.

I think this is a better approach, but they need to explain how and why they think they can revoke OGL 1.0a before a conversation can even begin on what (if anything) replaces it. Their continued avoidance of the central issue is incredibly off-putting.

In this scenario, I don't think WotC successfully defends their brand image from the White Power "5e" RPG, in any way, by yelling, "They're not compatible! They're not compatible." :D Still chuckling. :LOL:

There are real downsides to "renting" digital content. You won't find me arguing otherwise. There are also downsides to a home full of dead trees. Different people weigh the pros and cons differently. 🤷‍♂️

I like your posts and didn't want to laugh at this one because I thought it would be disrespectful, but I wanted to let you know that you made me chuckle. :giggle: