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

[kjdavies]

So, it seems to me that (with all respect to the publishers affected). If you are not publishing and profiting from content, the only effect will be that there will be less, (maybe no) 3rd party books and suppliments available in One D&D. It doesn't mean that you won't be able to play any way and with any elements that you like. It means that no other publisher is likely to come up with something that you want if WotC doesn't. If you are publishing game content, then for better or worse, WotC will likely come after you for a (maybe large) cut. According to the OP, in many instances, they'll have a legally valid case.

Honestly, One D&D is only of interest to me -- I think to many of us -- because it led to this situation. I think the bigger concern for many, if not most, of us is what happens to other games that might or might not be based on other SRDs than SRD 5.1.

Otherwise, I think for One D&D/5e in general, you're probably right.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

FoundryVTt is an explicit licensee in that it sells Paizo Adv Paths to customers. (technically, Paizo sells the codes which can be redeemed on Foundry's server.) The PF2 system is community authored. It is also better code than 5e's - theDev team working on PF2 has more people working on it than Foundry does. Talented.community dev is hard AF to assemble, but hard to beat when it is. The PF2 devs are to be commended.

I do not see any merit at all to the argument that Foundry is playing dirty pool with DDB. "Oh but you should have to buy it twice! "

Give it a rest. If WotC cared, they would send a Cease and Desist. They have not.

They have not needed to, they were gathering info and were planning on this nuclear strike on the OGL and VTT in general.

I already said that I am a Hasbro shareholder much earlier in this thread, but that does not change my opinion of their current contemplated actions.

I mainly use Fantasy Grounds but I have used Foundry and think it is quite good. Prefer it to Roll20. Happy all three exist and push each other.

I have posted about the danger of investing in a VTT that does not have a license for material that many users depend on well before this current issue.

If anything, Foundry is more pure in this than Roll20 or FG as they are not risking WoTC derived revenue as directly and are less likely to have been offered a sweetheart deal.

I am perfectly capable of both liking Foundry and seeing a potential IP issue with it. Surely as a lawyer you know that a C&D not being sent yet does not mean one is not coming. There were a bunch of quite good character builder spreadsheets on DMs Guild until WoTC started making money on D&D Beyond and then suddenly they were told to stop.

 

[S'mon]

Okay, I'm actually out here reading up on contracts, doctrine and practice, god help me, and from what I'm reading, the instance of acceptance by performance in 1.1 is rather different from your example, but I accept that this is likely the best answer y'all are going to give me.

It comes up a lot in reward cases. For some reason most of them seem to involve reward money posted for Australian murderers, and them being dobbed in it by their cellmate & fellow suspect ("exclusively to clear myself") or else their abused wife getting revenge on hubby*. From what I recall, your motive doesn't matter, but you must have the (reward) offer in mind at the time you snitch on your husband/cellmate (ie, accept the offer through performance), or else you can't claim.

Edit: *I just googled, sadly turns out Williams v Carwardine was in England. R v Clarke with the cellmate was in Oz, though.

Williams v Carwardine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

R v Clarke - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Prime_Evil]

Honestly, One D&D is only of interest to me -- I think to many of us -- because it led to this situation. I think the bigger concern for many, if not most, of us is what happens to other games that might or might not be based on other SRDs than SRD 5.1.

Otherwise, I think for One D&D/5e in general, you're probably right.

This is my position too. I have little interest in OneDnD, but have an interest in a number of independent games published under the OGL. This move potentially has implications far beyond the D&D / d20 / OSR ecosystem. This might be an honest oversight on the part of WotC, but the level of obfuscation in the licence makes me suspect it is a deliberate attempt to pee in the pool so nobody else can swim.

 

[Enrahim2]

Deleted due to irrelevance with regard to larger topic

 

[S'mon]

I guess it is not quite this simple. If for instance if you press "OK" on the license notification on software installation, I guess you cannot claim "I did it despite accepting"?

The court will typically go by "Would a reasonable person think you had accepted", rather than attempting to enquire what was really in your heart.

 

[Greg Benage]

It comes up a lot in reward cases. For some reason most of them seem to involve reward money posted for Australian murderers, and them being dobbed in it by their cellmate & fellow suspect ("exclusively to clear myself") or else their abused wife getting revenge on hubby. From what I recall, your motive in doesn't matter, but you must have the (reward) offer in mind at the time you snitch on your husband/cellmate (ie, accept the offer through performance), or else you can't claim.

Yeah, I can kind of see that from what I'm reading.

§ 50. Acceptance of Offer Defined; Acceptance by Performance; Acceptance by Promise​

(1) Acceptance of an offer is a manifestation of assent to the terms thereof made by the offeree in a manner invited or required by the offer.

(2) Acceptance by performance requires that at least part of what the offer requests be performed or tendered and includes acceptance by a performance which operates as a return promise.

(3) Acceptance by a promise requires that the offeree complete every act essential to the making of the promise.

It's not enough that I do the thing (e.g. fall asleep); I have to do the thing in a way that operates as a "return promise" for it to count as acceptance by performance.

 

[Ulfgeir]

The court will typically go by "Would a reasonable person think you had accepted", rather than attempting to enquire what was really in your heart.

Sadly it seems in too many cases that what laymen thinks are reasonable differs quite a lot from what lawyers think are reasonable.

 

[Enrahim2]

The court will typically go by "Would a reasonable person think you had accepted", rather than attempting to enquire what was really in your heart.

In that case I think the situation might be bad here. It seem like the basic offer is considered somewhat draconic, but not completely unreasonable. If Wizards actively contact you and ask you to agree or terminate, then you can't claim lack of knowledge. Hence continuing commercial use would appear to me as a sufficiently active act that similarly to the pressing OK button, it is hard to argue that I "had to do it", or similar ways of "tricking" a trigger.

 

[S'mon]

Nice try. The arrogance is unwise though and fairly drips from the page if what you are quoting is a final draft.

But they were all of them deceived, for another license was made. In the land of Seattle, in the fires of WotC-Hasbro, the Dark Lord Cynthia forged in secret, a master license, to control all others. And into this license she poured all her cruelty, her malice and her will to dominate all life.

(Not my joke - but it keeps getting more and more apposite!)