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

[The Stray]

Nah, I'm jus

That's a pretty harsh standard for a Youtuber! DnD Shorts who confirmed the leak says he won't release his video on it until Wednesday!

Nah, I'm just Terminally Online. Don't mind me.

 

[Nylanfs]

I do think this was very well put. I'm going to try to at least mention this when I'm teaching Contract this semester.

If you have any of your future classes talking about the WotC OGL issue recorded I'd be interested in seeing them.

 

[CapnZapp]

What they're doing now: wait until a final word from WotC is stated and then judge from there.
Everything right now is very much far from decided and, regardless what WotC is claiming, the OGL 1.0a is functioning exactly has it has for the prior 23 years and it shall continue doing that until WotC starts issueing cease and desists. It too early to say what's going to happen: knowing what they wanted to happen isn't the same as knowing what happened once it's over.

joe b.

Your theory assumes that people will wait. Why would anyone wait? I assume you think because someone would bet the OGL 1.0a is viable in the future; worth betting your business on.

I would say this is a dangerous thought.

"the OGL 1.0a is functioning exactly has it has for the prior 23 years" - this statement is only true in the most narrowest sense: legal facts.

In the wider, practical, real sense, no it is now completely dysfunctional, because the trust is gone.

WotC has shown that even if they're forced to back down now, nothing says they won't try again a month or a year from now.

The trust is gone, and cannot easily be recreated. (In practice, I think it is irrevocably gone )

This means the OGL is an unsafe path for the future; not worth betting your company's future on.

And all this is completely independent on what the lawyers or the courts will say.

 

[CapnZapp]

Prior to January 2023, it was reasonable to assume that the situation that existed for 23 years would continue. Especially in the wake of what happened with 4e and the GSL.

Now you can't and as a result the old OGL is dead.

Precisely.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but my point is, that's a perfectly reasonable stance to expect a 3PP to take. It's unusual for that to be the stance the end-user takes. Or at least, a significantly large and vocal subset of it.

Setting aside the fact that many people don't want folks in the industry to suffer (a big thing to set aside, to be sure), WotC clearly wants the OGL 1.0a to die, as a contract for future product at the very least. This means that, if they succeed, no new content would be created under it. If you supported those companies, liked their content and wanted to buy more of it, then this clearly a negative for you.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure whether the effect is what people think though, or what you imply. Back in the '80s, for example, games built on each other in a TECHNICAL sense, but each game kind of needed to be distinct in terms of IP. So, sans some sort of deal, you wouldn't likely produce a lot of material for someone else's game system, or base your new game system on some existing one. I mean, there WERE a fair number of such deals, or at least games changed hands fairly often, but there were a LOT of one-off kind of unique systems.

Today you get a lot of BitD spin-offs, PbtAs, or d20/5e spin offs, etc. Which is better?

Probably the current situation if you like those games.

 

[jgbrowning]

Your theory assumes that people will wait. Why would anyone wait?

Because the OGC of the 1.0a license has proven monetary value: past, present, and (more than likely) future.

I would say this is a dangerous thought.

"the OGL 1.0a is functioning exactly has it has for the prior 23 years" - this statement is only true in the most narrowest sense: legal facts.

No, its true in the truest sense in that nothing has changed with it. Things have changed around it. Important things, of course. But it is exactly what it has always been and it will be exactly what it has always been until the moment that WotC issues the first cease and desist upon an OGL'd product. That, and only that, is the moment that the safe harbor aspect of the license changes, that publishers have a real consideration to make in which "WotC could sue me" becomes a realized possibility as opposed to an always-possible-theoretical-possiblity.

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.

In the wider, practical, real sense, no it is now completely dysfunctional, because the trust is gone.

WotC has shown that even if they're forced to back down now, nothing says they won't try again a month or a year from now.

The trust is gone, and cannot easily be recreated. (In practice, I think it is irrevocably gone )

This means the OGL is an unsafe path for the future; not worth betting your company's future on.

And all this is completely independent on what the lawyers or the courts will say.

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.

 

[Maxperson]

I doubt it, back in 2000 perpetual meant ‘perpetual and irrevocable’. There is a reason why they talk about de-authorizing and not revoking

No. Perpetual COULD mean irrevocable, but often did not. That's why people starting using irrevocable to make things clear.

 

[Goemoe]

The trust is gone, and cannot easily be recreated. (In practice, I think it is irrevocably gone )

This means the OGL is an unsafe path for the future; not worth betting your company's future on.

Unless WotC makes an offical statement in person (not some other 'we' stuff) that justifies further trust, the damage is done. I can't imagine betting my company on it in this situation. The trust is gone.

There are tons of rule systems to choose from, if OGL 1.0a is gone. And just to be sure, PNP is not MMO, I will never pay a sub to play my favorite role playing game. Who ever thought this up can't be a gamer anyway.

 

[mamba]

No. Perpetual COULD mean irrevocable, but often did not. That's why people starting using irrevocable to make things clear.

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

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