Cory Doctorow writes about the OGL 1.1

[darjr]

 

[darjr]

It’s a long string of posts.
A sample.

 

[darjr]

 

[Greg Benage]

I don't think this has anything to do with "using the fans for unpaid creative labor," but I'm not #surprised that Doctorow is not a #fan. The graphic is #inspired, though.

 

[darjr]

Ugh can someone unroll this please, I’m not in a place to do it at the moment.

 

[ersatzphil]

I originally didn’t think they would, but at this point I’d be surprised if the EFF didn’t weigh in at some point.

 

[mhd]

A not too small part of this seems to focus on the "You were signing away your rights with the OGL, as you can't copyright mechanics anyway" stuff we're hearing a lot.

I think a lot of people knew that already, but without a truly clear-cut distinction between mechanics and 'trade dress' or whatever the presentation might be called, people wouldn't have risked that. Lawyers being scary etc.

 

[darjr]

I originally didn’t think they would, but at this point I’d be surprised if the EFF didn’t weigh in at some point.

They did post an article, again I haven’t read that yet either….

 

[J.Quondam]

I originally didn’t think they would, but at this point I’d be surprised if the EFF didn’t weigh in at some point.

They have, here's the ENWorld thread:

Electronic Freedom Foundation weighs in on the OGL!

They are a HEAVY HITTER. IANAL but the tl;dr appears to be: Hasbro can revoke OGL 1.0a, but also that publishers can write D&D compatible material without it but may get sued by Hasbro...

www.enworld.org

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'm wondering now if all the companies that in theory went to lawyers to get their T's crossed and I's dotted when producing OGL content could find those attorneys liable if in fact the revocation of the OGL goes through? Is that even a thing? If a lawyer gives you bad advice and you suffer consequences as a result, can you find the lawyer at fault as well?