Search results

Does it matter that Section 9 of the OGL provides a mechanism for updating the licence but does not specify a mechanism for de-authorizing previous versions of the OGL? Is there a meaningful distinction between updating the terms and revocation of the license itself?

If that is true and the OGL is a contract with consideration rather than a mere promise, does it not logically follow that the only mechanism by which WoTC can revoke the license is by invoking the termination provisions in Section 13?

Remember that WoTC have a major blockbuster film riding on the brand. This changes the equation substantially.

We probably won't know for certain until we see the final draft of the new licence. There have been hints it was supposed to drop a few days ago, but that community feedback is leading WoTC to reconsider their position.

So effectively, if you do not opt-in to the OGL v1.1, you can continue to exercise the rights granted under 1.0a?

And what is the effect on the reliance of third parties upon this wording to enter into independent agreements with licensees covering IP not under WoTC control? Must they cease using the OGL version 1.0a? Or do these sublicenses survive termination of the parent license?

Here's an interesting legal question. Some RPG publishers outside of the DnD ecosystem have used the Open Game Licence. They released their own game systems as Open Game Content under the terms of the Open Game License. WoTC has no claim on the intellectual property embodied in these game...

Arc Dream relied upon Open Game Content from the Legend RPG to create the current version of Delta Green. They released some of their additions to this material as OGC, contributing back to the community. Chaosium has sometimes argued that the d100 system embodied by Legend is an unlicensed...

Another thing to note is that Arc Dream are not re-licensing the Open Game Content under a different scheme. They are revoking the rights of third parties to use it altogether. I expect to see a lot of this over the next few months. This is an overall loss for the industry, ending 20+ years of...

If they own the upstream IP, they can. But a large number of small publishers depend upon OGC released by somebody further up the food chain. Here's how it works: Company A releases their some of their IP as Open Game Content under the OGL. Company B comes along and uses the OGC under the terms...

That pretty much kills all future releases for any game system released under the OGL. You can expect the death of systems like Cepheus Engine, OpenD6, FATE, Legend, Delta Green, etc. WoTC may be on shaky legal ground due to the reliance of unrelated parties on a public offer they made. But...

I would like WotC to clarify the position of games unrelated to D&D who adopted the OGL in good faith. Remember that over the past twenty years, WotC have offered the license as something usable by any RPG company as a way to license content. And lots of companies took them up on that offer...

And that is perfectly reasonable. The sky is not falling, but there are some genuine concerns about aspects of the proposed license change. The OGL is a legally binding contract between the licensor and the licensee. The details matter. Lawyers don't care about fuzzy "intentions". They care...

The proposed OGL changes do introduce some dangers for WoTC. We are in a good position right now. WoTC is the official publisher of D&D. They enjoy widespread community support. Sales are strong with a blockbuster movie on the horizon. There is a Fan Content Policy for folks who want to produce...

It is far too early to see the fine print yet. WoTC probably hasn't figured out all the details themselves. But nature abhors a vacuum and people are speculating based upon what has been announced. YouTube is an outrage machine at the best of times. And fan rage is a great way to drive engagement.

I don't think WoTC are trying to "screw over gamers". I do think they are making business decisions based upon their own perceived best interest. The health of the broader RPG industry isn't their problem, except insofar as it impacts on their brands.

That's the heart of the argument. My suspicion is that both parties were acting in good faith, but neither fully appreciated the position of the other. And it became a bone of contention as the relationship degenerated for other reasons. But after the "divorce", both parties landed on a...

I believe private discussions around the fate of Runequest trademark occurred around 2000. I can't remember the exact date of the trademark expiry, but it should be a matter of public record. I seem to recall Greg finally secured the rights to the trademark in 2003. Issaries didn't enter a...

This is open to interpretation. The Glorantha setting was explicitly declared as product identity in all Mongoose books. This meets the requirements of Section 7 of the OGL as Mongoose held an independent Agreement with the owner of the IP embodied in the Product Identity. Under the terms of the...

Greg had clear ownership of the trademark. And he also retained all rights to the Glorantha setting. But the first edition of Mongoose Runequest was effectively a "retroclone" of classic RQ. However, this was done with the knowledge and tacit approval of the leadership team at WoTC at the time...