If that is the case, why use a vague term as 'de-authorize'? Why wouldn't they have used language such as: "By agreeing to this licence you also agree to use OGL 1.1 or higher for any of our products licenced with OGL 1.1."
Last edited:
Hello, I am lawyer with a PSA: almost everyone is wrong about the OGL and SRD. Clearing up confusion.
- Thread starter DavyGreenwind
- Start date
If that is the case, why use a vague term as 'de-authorize'? Why wouldn't they have used language such as: "By agreeing to this licence you also agree to use OGL 1.1 or higher for any of our products licenced with OGL 1.1."
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Their opinion amounts to: The OGL must state it's irrevocable to be irrevocable. While a statement of irrevocability inside the OGL would have put alot of us at ease, the legal cases that have been cited here and actually looked at by the professionals posting, so far none seem to support the notion that the lack of an explicit irrevocability clause neceassirly means a license is irrevocable.
In fact many are finding that the decisions around revocability are highly case/fact specific. Essentially, explicit duration and explicit termination clauses are strong factors supporting a license not being revocable outside those clauses.
FrogReaver
The most respectful and polite poster ever
Deauthorize isn't vague. It's an explicit reference to section 9 in OGL 1.0a. Deauthorizing 1.0a has the same effect as revoking 1.0a without needing to say revoking 1.0a.
WOW! That's the best piece of news I've had for about a week .. someone slap that all over Reddit would you?
Agreed on the first clause. The use of analogy with the gratuitous licence over property is for a very narrow point: if we are wrong in respect of your first clause, it's hard for me to see a scenario in which sub-licensees get to continue to enjoy their licences in respect of WotC's copyright. To me that seems such a bizarre outcome that I can't see how it would come about.
(Of course if its termination for breach that's a different matter. We're agreed on your last sentence, as per my post.)
WOW! That's the best piece of news I've had for about a week .. someone slap that all over Reddit would you?
It's good the EFF noticed. It's not good that the writer seems to accept at face value WoTC's claim that they can revoke the OGL 1.0. I know she was just using that as a jumping off point to talk about the limits of copyright, but still I got a "with friends like these..." feeling.
Talking of the EFF, I wonder if my old friend Robin Gross of 'IP Justice' is still around? The site is still active https://www.ipjustice.org/ - and yes she's still there https://www.ipjustice.org/digital-rights/ip-justice-statement-to-wipo-general-assembly-july-2022/ - they might be worth contacting.
1. When it comes to these issues, the EFF does carry some weight.
2. The cases cited are that the lack of the magic phrase doesn't necessarily mean that the license is irrevocable; however, I would say that the majority rule and the great weight of authority in the United States) is that the absence of the word irrevocable does, in fact, mean that the license is revocable. As I have noted in passing, courts have (on occasion) found ways around around this by construing the contract in other ways- but the EFF's initial analysis is correct (IMO)- on the face of the agreement, it's (most likely) revocable. Which is bad if you are advising 3PPs on the merits of what would be expensive and protracted litigation.
Steel_Wind
Legend
Uhmmm.... no. I do not agree with this view. You are entitled to believe it if you want -- and tattoo it on your arm if you care to, but it is wrong in law, imo.
The central issue is this: copyright protects expression; patents protect ideas. You need to mention A & B together, because it is not that ideas are not worthy of protection, rather, that the protection they attract is more difficult to qualify for -- and does not last as long. By mentioning both together, you orient yourself when analyzing to appreciate that the difference here is not whether something seems clever or valuable, but what kind of "precious thing in the shop" you have found.
Some of what was in the D&D rules would have qualified for a patent, but that is in the rear view mirror now. It's "A" OR "B", it's not both.
Last edited:
Enrahim2
Adventurer
(IANAL) Well, here the tricky legalese legwork come in working come in. Section 1.0a section 9 doesn't specify that you need to accept the lisence the OGC was originally contributed under in order to publish it under 1.0a provided 1.0a is "authorized". Hence even if the 1.1 agreement spelled out that the lisencee agreed to not use OGL material in any 1.0a publications, an entity not bound by 1.1 would still be free to use any OGC that 1.1 compliant entity published under 1.1, citing the grant of 1.0a.
However puting the statement the way they do in 1.1 creates some important legal ambiguities. For one thing it appear the action of stating something is "no longer an authorized lisence" is not having any well defined meaning in contract law. There is hence room for interpretation.
- One interpretation is that it is meaningless nonsense, and should just be ignored.
- Another is that it somehow is an very weird way of writing the much less ambigous "Which is hereby revoked", which seem like most consider an illegal claim and hence void.
- The third interpretation I propose is that it adresses the "authorized" term in the update section of the license it claim to update. Hence asserting the notion that this "authorized" term that regulates which lisences can use material from which lisences can be specified in connection to the act of doing the update.
This third interpretation I still haven't seen any strong arguments for being fully invalid. Hence from an interpretation perspective it seem like this should at least be given some more consideration before being discarded in favor of one of the two likely void interpretations.
With this way of formulating it, it bypasses the issue that a 1.0a licensee has not accepted 1.1, as it rather adresses the state of 1.1 relative to 1.0a section 9. For someone to claim use of the 1.1 material they must justify that they consider 1.1 a "version of this lisence". However the sentence justifying such an assertion in 1.1, also include the claim that 1.0a is not aithorized. So either the 1.0a lisensee cannot claim 1.1 to be an ogl lisence, under section 9, or he has to claim 1.0a is not authorised as well, hence admitting the section 9 do not grant them the right to publish the ogl 1.1 material under 1.0a.
TL
R 1 the suggested formulation could have been claimed not accepted by someone using 1.1 material in 1.0a. This formulation is cleverly placed so the 1.0a cannot conduct such activity while not claiming acceptance of it.The problem: It was too clever, so noone not informed about the intended "plain language" interpretation might be prone to jump to the wrong interpretation, even if that was (obviously) legally invalid, unenforcable and cartonishly cruel if intended.
The big mystery is why wizards didn't write this out as a comment? Maybe they didn't want to draw attention to how this creates a one way vacuum from all ogl material into an exlusive VTT platform? Maybe they intended to scare/trick people under NDA not immediately seeing the right interpretation into signing binding contracts, before releasing the document publicly with a comment explaining the proper understanding to the world? Maybe they were so blinded by the brilliance of their clever legal footwork that they didn't realise it could be misinterpreted the way it did? This I guess we will never know for sure, but my guess is that they will claim the last in their next update..
Unless they have taken the suggestions of people describing how they can exploit this situation to crush all competition to heart, and figured it actually might be a more profitable path forward than their original plan.
Similar Threads
