Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.

[AbdulAlhazred]

You are absolutely right. I wasn’t clear.

I’m not sure that people aren’t overestimating the impact of the ogl on wotc’s bottom line.

The impact to the hobby is massive.

I'm still not convinced there is that much impact. I mean, I think that there may be some overall impact to the types of content people are putting out these days (sticking closer to existing game systems that are OGL since that is legally rather safe). I'm not convinced it is all that related to the overall size and level of activity in the industry as a whole, or even in the D&D space. D&D has surged and ebbed in popularity through time. I would actually say that the general existence of online communities, which really has little to do with OGL, is a FAR larger factor! Nowadays things can really catch fire and burn. Back in the late '70s and early '80s yes, D&D was a THING, and it clearly registered on the consciousness of the whole country (several countries even) but the current wave is larger and longer-lasting, and I think that really is about the way the Internet can grow and sustain such a society.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

There's still a lot of others. They just tend to be one-and-done. I could probably pull 20-out of my pdf collection given ten minutes.

I'd actually say what's less common is new systems that actually get any significant follow-up. It still happens, but less often.

That may be, I don't know, but in the old days, there was NOTHING ELSE, go back and read about the 1970's and '80s RPGs. I bet you never even heard of 90% of them. Virtually none ever got 3PP, it wasn't even a thing. But a huge ton of different games and material still came out.

 

[Maxperson]

yeah, it usually does mean irrevocable however, we already have pretty good precedence for that.

No. It all depended on the context of what was written in the document and sometimes the intent as shown in other documents or testimony. There's no clear precedent that perpetual meant irrevocable.

To find out of OGL 1.0a meant that, it would have to be tested in court. Lawyers are split on whether it does or does not, so there can be no real confidence that it is irrevocable.

Irrevocable was added so we do not have to go through this in court every time, not because it was a gap that needed fixing.

Not according to all the lawyers that I've been reading that are talking about OGL 1.0a.

As I said, there is a reason why they try to de-authorize it instead of revoking it

Yep. And that reason is that with the revocability up in the air, they felt it was stronger to go with deauthorization.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Probably the current situation if you like those games.

Well, I'm just saying, different ain't necessarily better, and the amount of games today is more due to Kickstarter and the ease of publishing (heck, you can just go to PDF, I'd have published 100 RPGs back in the day if I could have done that in 1980).

 

[mamba]

No. It all depended on the context of what was written in the document and sometimes the intent as shown in other documents or testimony. There's no clear precedent that perpetual meant irrevocable.

that is why I said pretty good

To find out of OGL 1.0a meant that, it would have to be tested in court. Lawyers are split on whether it does or does not, so there can be no real confidence that it is irrevocable.

yeah, there is always the chance you get a rogue judge. Lawyers specialize in different fields, so some not agreeing does not mean all that much to me.

Not according to all the lawyers that I've been reading that are talking about OGL 1.0a.

see above, precendence favors the interpretation as irrevocable pretty strongly from my understanding. That being said there is never certainty when you find yourself in front of a judge.

Yep. And that reason is that with the revocability up in the air, they felt it was stronger to go with deauthorization.

see, not even WotC thinks they have a good chance there, and even deauthorization is already very much a gamble.

This is more about scaring people away than actually having a valid case as far as I can tell

Ultimately none of this matters, the original point was that you said they would not even have tried this if the license contained the word irrevocable, and I pointed out that they would still have tried, because they are not attempting to revoke it now either (because their chances are so slim), but try to de-authorize it, where the inclusion of ‘irrevocable’ would not have helped you at all, contrary to your claim

 

[glass]

The ORC will be no better at protecting anyone than the OGL was/is, it's a license, not a terminator. If everyone just runs for cover as soon as a corporation wants to take their ball home, then it offers zero protection. Doesn't matter whether that is from WotC today or potentially Paizo tomorrow.

I think it will be better, for several reasons: None of the companies involved in its creation are likely to become as large as Hasbro (not least because their are several of them), and even if they do they will not control the text of the licence itself in the way that WotC do. It will have learned the lessons from the OGL, including the recent debacle, and attempted to prevent history repeating itself.

Dollars to donuts ORC will say irrevocable in it somewhere.

Probably several somewheres.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That may be, I don't know, but in the old days, there was NOTHING ELSE, go back and read about the 1970's and '80s RPGs. I bet you never even heard of 90% of them. Virtually none ever got 3PP, it wasn't even a thing. But a huge ton of different games and material still came out.

You'd be surprised. In case I don't always make it clear, I've been in the hobby since 1975. I can promise you there were not as many third party games as there are in the modern period, simply because the PDF market and modern digital preparation tools has dropped the entry bar so low. Even the extremely cheap production quality of some 80's games had more overhead than that.

Seriously man, sometime get on DTRPG and select "core books" and don't screen for anything else. There are over 15000 hits. And that doesn't even count the people who don't go through DTRPG. That's ignoring "non-core books".

As I said, you might have more ongoing lines of games in the 80's and 90's now (I'm not sold on it, but its possible), but individual games and products? Not even.

 

[Maxperson]

that is why I said pretty good

I wouldn't call unclear pretty good. Pretty good would be clear or pretty clear precedent. Being unclear means it could go either way pretty easily.

yeah, there is always the chance you get a rogue judge. Lawyers specialize in different fields, so some not agreeing does not mean all that much to me.

Rogue judges are why clear precedent is "pretty good." Nothing is 100% in law. Being unclear would not require a rogue judge to decide against 3PP. And it would most likely go to a jury, not be decided by a judge.

see above, precendence favors the interpretation as irrevocable pretty strongly from my understanding.

If you've been following the lawyer conversations, a lot of it depends on where it goes to court. Different states have different standards and processes to determine these things. What might be a slam dunk for the 3PP in one state could be a slam dunk for WotC in another. I can tell you that good lawyers know these things and would find a 3PP in a state favorable to them to sue in.

 

[mamba]

I think it will be better, for several reasons: None of the companies involved in its creation are likely to become as large as Hasbro

agreed, but that is an external factor, the license in and of itself does not offer better protection

If WotC somehow decided to pull the same stunt under the ORC license, you would not be any better off

 

[mamba]

I wouldn't call unclear pretty good.

So rolling more than a 2 on a d20 are not pretty good chances? Not everything that is unclear is 50/50

As I said, this whole line of reasoning is missing the point we started on. Agree to disagree, but it changes nothing about the initial point

 

[Maxperson]

So rolling more than a 2 on a d20 are not pretty good chances? Not everything that is unclear is 50/50

It's not even close to a 3+ on a d20 for 3PP to prevail.

As I said, this whole line of reasoning is missing the point we started on. Agree to disagree, but it changes nothing about the initial point

LOL I can't even remember the initial point now.

 

[Staffan]

Seriously man, sometime get on DTRPG and select "core books" and don't screen for anything else. There are over 15000 hits. And that doesn't even count the people who don't go through DTRPG. That's ignoring "non-core books".

That's because DTRPG doesn't do any curation of what's a core book and what isn't. The "core book" filter is nigh useless.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

That's because DTRPG doesn't do any curation of what's a core book and what isn't. The "core book" filter is nigh useless.

I always assumed they were the books for my abs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

So... we're on page 100.

All the confusion cleared up?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's not even close to a 3+ on a d20 for 3PP to prevail.

pretend for a second it is... now think like a gamer.

You have a trap, you can on a 3+ get past it... but you need to use up a bunch of spell slots and some items to get that to a 3+ (aka spend money) if you fail you TPK the entire game... OR you could try to go around.

We all know how dice like to come up 1s at the wrong moment...

Now remember THAT is just a game, these are real people putting real money on the line.

 

[Maxperson]

pretend for a second it is... now think like a gamer.

You have a trap, you can on a 3+ get past it... but you need to use up a bunch of spell slots and some items to get that to a 3+ (aka spend money) if you fail you TPK the entire game... OR you could try to go around.

We all know how dice like to come up 1s at the wrong moment...

Now remember THAT is just a game, these are real people putting real money on the line.

Sure, but I think you've lost track of the conversation.

We were discussing whether putting irrevocable in OGL 1.0a would make a difference to 3PP. I argued that considering that people are currently arguing for just that, that it would make a difference. @mamba argued that in OGL 1.0a perpetual = irrevocable. It doesn't. It doesn't even come close to equaling irrevocable.

Fast forward to hypothetical situations where OGL 1.0a is tried in court. He's saying that as it currently stands it's a 3 or higher in favor of perpetual being found to mean irrevocable. It isn't. It's not even close to that. His point is what you are saying, that as gamers that 1 or 2 is too much, but his point is lost as it's closer to 50/50 than 90% in favor of 3PP which is why we have so much panic right now. My point is that if you put irrevocable into the OGL, it never sees court and many 3PP would take solace in that and continue to create content.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's because DTRPG doesn't do any curation of what's a core book and what isn't. The "core book" filter is nigh useless.

Even if you tossed 90% of those--and that actually seems excessive IME--that would leave a hell of a lot of game lines. You see a handful every single week.

 

[mamba]

My point is that if you put irrevocable into the OGL, it never sees court and many 3PP would take solace in that and continue to create content.

and my point is that it still would go to court because WotC is not revoking it, they are de-authorizing it. They used that word for a reason (guess which one…), so adding ‘irrevocable’ would not have made a difference.
This is not really about the merit of their claim, it is about being big enough to scare everyone away

Glad you remember where we started before we drifted into probabilities

 

[CapnZapp]

So far, everything is just saber-rattling. Until the sabers are drawn and swung, this is just an unfriendly conversation when friendly conversations were what had proceeded it for decades.



What the courts say is extremely important because this is a legal matter. I understand clearly that you disagree, but right now everyone is "waiting and seeing" because not a single legally-binding action has been taken regarding a legal matter.

Even those who are making alternative plans are waiting and seeing, for once things are settled and determined and the uncertainty is resolved the OGL 1.0a license will be used again to access the valuable OGC that has been released under it. Of course, I could be wrong and the court decides in a way that kills the OGL forever. That's always a possibility, but I think it highly doubtful.

joe b.

Eh, you might want to look around you. You're the only one still in the play garden - everybody else has left.

Nobody is willing to risk the future of their plans on what a court is saying - especially since WotC has so clearly shown itself to be hostile to the idea to continued peaceful coexistence; even if the courts decide clearly against WotC, that victory would still be pyrrhic.

It's dead, Jim.

 

[Maxperson]

and my point is that it still would go to court because WotC is not revoking it, they are de-authorizing it. They used that word for a reason, so adding ‘irrevocable’ would not have made a difference

Glad you remember where we started before we drifted into probabilities

So perpetual and irrevocable have meanings in law. Deauthorize does not. If it were irrevocable, WotC would not go to court because deauthorize = attempt to revoke. Going in front of a judge and attempting to revoke an irrevocable license by saying you're deauthorizing it instead would probably get you laughed out of court.

"Really officer, I wasn't speeding. I was streaking down the street."

It took me a while to remember, but I got there!