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

[Remathilis]

It was based on his inside knowledge of Paizo. He stated outright the best chance the community has is Paizo fighting it and that there is a good chance they will, but did caution there is also a small chance they just sell the company to WotC to avoid the fight.

He has also said that there are multiple third parties in the background talking with lawyers and getting prepared.

I'll admit to being wrong on the full nature of 1.1, but you're going to have to do a lot better than "trust my bro" if you're claiming Mercer sold out and Paizo is throwing in the towel. Those are serious claims and I want far better than some YouTuber before I accept that. We're talking "the death of RPGs" level hysteria.

 

[kjdavies]

I don't think anyone thinks the OGL v 1.1 is going to be an update in the sense intended by section 9 of the OGL v 1.0a, do they? That seemed to be ruled out as soon as the press release was issued last month.

(I know I said I was bowing out, but this find seems relevant)

"Who thinks this is going to be an update in the sense intended by section 9"?

From the FAQ-looking thing in @Morrus ' "WotC Announces OGL 1.1" thread:

2. Will the OGL terms change?
Yes. We will release version 1.1 of the OGL in early 2023.

The OGL needs an update to ensure [...]

Second, we’re updating the OGL to offer different terms to creators who choose to make free, share-alike content and creators who want to sell their products.

Seems WotC thinks they're updating the OGL.

Whether this has any meaning or bearing on what happens in court, if it gets there, I cannot say... but the words chosen seem to align with how I was reading things.

 

[Xyxox]

I'll admit to being wrong on the full nature of 1.1, but you're going to have to do a lot better than "trust my bro" if you're claiming Mercer sold out and Paizo is throwing in the towel. Those are serious claims and I want far better than some YouTuber before I accept that. We're talking "the death of RPGs" level hysteria.

I never claimed Mercer sold out, I am saying it's likely because of all the third parties, Critical Role likely got a super sweetheart deal presented because their value for driving people to D&D is incredibly valuable for WotC/Hasbro. Only time will tell if they did.

 

[GracefulBreath]

I'll admit to being wrong on the full nature of 1.1, but you're going to have to do a lot better than "trust my bro" if you're claiming Mercer sold out and Paizo is throwing in the towel. Those are serious claims and I want far better than some YouTuber before I accept that. We're talking "the death of RPGs" level hysteria.

Yeah there seems to be a lot of this damning of anyone who isn't talking about the (technically) speculative leak, I've seen people saying on twitter that Colville has also sold out, which is absolutely crazy talk. Until WotC actually has a public release about official 1.1 documents, it's too big of a risk for people high up in companies to just throw weighty accusations around, no matter how many people confirm the leak sources.

 

[Greg Benage]

I hate all this speculating about who has "sold out." First, it's speculation and rumormongering. Second, I said it before and I'll say it again: It's easy for us to talk about "selling out" when it's not our business, employees, and investors on the line.

 

[Remathilis]

I never claimed Mercer sold out, I am saying it's likely because of all the third parties, Critical Role likely got a super sweetheart deal presented because their value for driving people to D&D is incredibly valuable for WotC/Hasbro. Only time will tell if they did.

Hearsay and possibly libel until proven.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When reading the leak, I was quite certain the leaked "deauthorized" language was only refering to the asymmetry formulation in section 9. Hence the only legal meaning of the term would be that 1.1 content could not be distributed under 1.0a, while 1.0a content could still be freely copied, modified and distributed under 1.1. Under this interpretation 1.0a content would still be permitted used in new 1.0a publications according to section 4 of the lisence.

If this had been the case, it is obvious that wizards would still retain all rights involved. However when no actual lawyers seem to pick up on this to me obvious interpretation, along with a 13th of january deadline floating around without any leaked quotes about the legal formulation around the importance of this date, there seem clear that I am likely missing something.

However even if I accept what seem to be the consensus opinion that wizards try to prevent publication of new 1.0a material, without understanding the legal framework that could possibly support such a claim - I cannot see why refusing anyone to make new 1.0a material would prevent anyone from using existing 1.0a material in 1.1 publications, as that appear to be a logically orthogonal concern.

To illustrate how these are orthogonal, at least for a layman as me, imagine the following mechanism at work: Wizards asserts their copyright to 1.0a, denying anyone to produce new copies of this. That would naievly prevent further 1.0a publications, as the condition in section 10 couldn't be legaly be fulfilled. Meanwhile there would be no obvious legal grounds I could see for section 9 to not still be fully in effect.

I think the logic is effectively like this:

Suppose WotC published a 1.1 'OGL' who's gist is "nobody can distribute anything under this license, it grant nothing." Now they decree "all WotC content is hereby only distributed under OGL 1.1, including (by force of section 9) ALL content currently designated by WotC as being distributed under any version of OGL. What is asserted is that this effectively destroys any existing obligations WotC had assumed to allow distribution of its OGC, period. That would, in their opinion, prevent even the continued distribution of existing materials containing WotC OGC. Now, the contrary opinion is "wait a minute, everyone else can use Section 9 from the existing license to continue to do what we have always been doing, by simply continuing to abide by OGL 1.0a." Which of these statements takes precedence over the other? Section 9 NEVER SAYS it is in reference only to choosing which license you distribute YOUR OWN content under, it says "any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this license." This is one of (several) serious flaws in the OGL's structure. Only a court is ever going to be able to disentangle that, because the license itself cannot.

The fact that version 1.1 seems to try to obliterate the TERM "Open Game Content" is IMHO telling. This seems to be a way of trying to buttress an argument that OGC is non-existent, and that by putting all their material under OGL 1.1 they have effectively made section 9 of OGL 1.0a moot. They would say in effect "but, Your Honor, we don't HAVE any 'Open Game Content' now that we have adopted OGL 1.1!" By THAT logic, you could still try to use the effect of the old section 9, but it would apply to nothing (not that this is a very good argument, IMHO, but its kind of a layered legal strategy, they just need one noodle to stick to the wall in order to win).

 

[pemerton]

It was not a draft, it was an actual contract they wanted signed onto. If somebody signed their contract and the OGL 1.1 is not released as that was included to induce the signature, then WotC has engaged in fraud to get a signature on a contract. That's why they must release it or they face not just civil consequenses from the signor, they face criminal consequences for committing fraud.

I think the suggestion that WotC is engaged in criminal fraud is highly implausible.

 

[Xyxox]

I think the suggestion that WotC is engaged in criminal fraud is highly implausible.

It's only fraud if they don't release the OGL 1.1.

 

[pemerton]

Seems WotC thinks they're updating the OGL.

As I posted a couple of times upthread - I don't think there is any point in trying to read press releases as if they are legal documents. When press releases, or "info packs", are all that we have then we need to look at them and try to imagine what the legal framework is that they are describing.

It seems pretty obvious that WotC wants to create a new ecosystem for licensed content, in which participants are obliged to play them royalties (under certain conditions). They will therefore not make the basic error of releasing a licence which obviously falls within the terms of OGL v 1.0/1.0a's section 9 and thus entitles existing licensees, and probably future sub-licensees also, to use WotC's new content under any the existing royalty-free licence.

Thus, whatever exactly the OGL v 1.1 looks like, it will not be an "update" within the meaning of section 9 of v 1.0/1.0a.

And "update" has no other legal meaning in this context that I can see.

So trying to argue that v 1.1 will nevertheless, in some sense, be an update strikes me as pointless and even quixotic.

This doesn't stop WotC's media and comms team describing things however they like - but why are you taking their choice of words so seriously if what you're actually trying to do is cut through the comms team's spin and make legal sense of what might actually be happening?