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

[Yaarel]

I think our perspectives differ here a bit Mr P. I agree that the language we're seeing does not look very legal, but everything we're getting from those who have seen OGL 1.1 seems to show a very high degree of correspondence between the language in the press release and the language in the licence. We can say as lawyer guys "But this language makes no legal sense! They're torpedoing their own position!" - but if their real goal is intimidation of 3PPs into abandoning OGL 1.0, NOT creating an effective legal document for the courtroom, I think it makes a lot more sense.

I see two interacting possibilities:
1. Externally, they are focused on scaring people, not on creating something legally effective. It's never intended to stand up in court.
2. Internally, there is weird stuff going on, perhaps akin to what I saw with TSR in the mid 90s. The TSR staff lawyer I spoke with was saying things that legally made no sense. It seems he was enacting the will of his Dark Mistress. TSR was in a sort of Fuhrer Bunker mentality at the time. In this case WoTC's leadership may be (a) consumed with hatred of open gaming (b) promised the investors to end the 'under monetisation', and this weird document & strategy is primarily about how it looks to the investors.

Maybe the weird language and abundant pages are to try distract people from the two sentences that matter?

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

 

[S'mon]

Maybe the weird language and abundant pages are to try distract people from the two sentences that matter?

"This agreement is, along with the OGL: Non-Commercial, an update to the previously available OGL 1.0(a), which is no longer an authorized license agreement. We can modify or terminate this agreement for any reason whatsoever, provided We give thirty (30) days’ notice. We will provide notice of any such changes by posting the revisions on Our website, and by making public announcements through Our social media channels."

No, I think they definitely want the major 3PPs to have read that. I think they want the major 3PPs to go "OMG, I'm ruined!" and then be psychologically amenable to signing up to better (but still bad) bespoke agreements.

This is speculation of course, and speculation about commercial strategy, not legal strategy. But I think it fits what we've seen.

 

[Hussar]

My searching hasn't turned it up. @Hussar can confirm whether or not I've misattributed the idea to him!

I don’t recall exactly but I think I floated the idea that this has less to do with what has happened in the past but with going forward. IOW, they don’t really care about the current 3pp. Why would they? It’s not like any of them are even remotely actual competitors.

But they might care if someone like ten cent suddenly decided to bang out movie adjacent video games for your iPhone using the ogl. Or character builders. That sort of thing.

I have no idea how plausible this is but the timing seems suspect.

 

[Yaarel]

No, I think they definitely want the major 3PPs to have read that. I think they want the major 3PPs to go "OMG, I'm ruined!" and then be psychologically amenable to signing up to better (but still bad) bespoke agreements.

This is speculation of course, and speculation about commercial strategy, not legal strategy. But I think it fits what we've seen.

Heh, I am glad your take is, the 1.1 legal document cannot possibly be taken seriously in court.

 

[Prime_Evil]

I think the key question is what mechanism they are using to extinguish the rights granted by v1.0a. This is what will attract the most attention.

 

[sigfried]

It's hard for me to see an alternative reading that makes as much sense, given just the context of section 9.

I can help you with that.

What if I made a version of the OGL and said in it, you get to use everything WOTC has ever published? Would that be an "Authorised" version of the OGL?

Nope, but it's something someone could try and do if they were feeling cheeky. The point of the Authorized language is to say you can only use a version of the language written by and authorized by Wizards of the Coast, not variations other people might try to pass off, which is a real concern with a license passed around in the way Open licenses are.

 

[pemerton]

I see two interacting possibilities:
1. Externally, they are focused on scaring people, not on creating something legally effective. It's never intended to stand up in court.
2. Internally, there is weird stuff going on, perhaps akin to what I saw with TSR in the mid 90s. The TSR staff lawyer I spoke with was saying things that legally made no sense. It seems he was enacting the will of his Dark Mistress. TSR was in a sort of Fuhrer Bunker mentality at the time. In this case WoTC's leadership may be (a) consumed with hatred of open gaming (b) promised the investors to end the 'under monetisation', and this weird document & strategy is primarily about how it looks to the investors.

At the naval Battle of Salamis, Queen Artemisia, a sub-king of the Persian Empire, reportedly attacked and sunk one of her own side's ships. Not because it made any military sense, but because of how it looked to the Persian Great King, Darius I think it was. It would make no sense to sink your own ship - so that must have been a Greek ship! I think we might be seeing similar behaviour here.

I think 1 is plausible.

For me, 2 and the Artemisia story seem less likely. TSR in the mid-90s was beginning its fall off the cliff. (Maybe it was even half-way to the bottom!) Whereas WotC is more-or-less at the height of its powers.

 

[pemerton]

I think the key question is what mechanism they are using to extinguish the rights granted by v1.0a. This is what will attract the most attention.

The better view, at this stage, has to be that there is no such mechanism. I think there is purely assertion on a power point slide, and then a term in v 1.1 whereby licensees agree to release their rights under v 1.0/1/0a.

 

[S'mon]

I think 1 is plausible.

For me, 2 and the Artemisia story seem less likely. TSR in the mid-90s was beginning its fall off the cliff. (Maybe it was even half-way to the bottom!) Whereas WotC is more-or-less at the height of its powers.

Well, remember that Hasbro stock is down 40% on the year, downgraded to a Sell recommendation, and that this is primarily due to WoTC's recent mismanagement of Magic: The Gathering.

Edit: Also I think the suggestion that Microsoft execs tend to be viscerally hostile to Open Source may have some merit.

 

[jgbrowning]

Well, remember that Hasbro stock is down 40% on the year, downgraded to a Sell recommendation, and that this is due to WoTC's mismanagement of Magic: The Gathering.

I also think it important to remember that the purchase of D&D Beyond from Fandom for $146.3 million has just occurred. That's a large amount to be moving out, even with WotC's size.

joe b.