Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Prime_Evil" data-source="post: 8885110" data-attributes="member: 11984">I suspect what you are saying is true. If WotC want to offer content associated with OneDnD under a different licence to the one used by previous editions, that is entirely their prerogative. I suspect they will ring-fence the new material, clearly labelling it as Licensed Content rather than Open Game Content. I also think the use of Licensed Content will require licensees to agree to a waiver of their rights under the OGL v1.0a. The wording will matter as it may be possible for companies to spin off a subsidiary at arm's length to publish OneDnD material if the wording is loose. I suspect lawyers acting for Hasbro will be aware of this potential loophole. At the same time, I suspect WoTC will not be able to unilaterally terminate the OGL v.1.0. I am not yet aware of any plausible mechanism they could use to do this. Reliance on the concept of &quot;de-authorisation&quot; as some people have speculated seems risky. It relies upon a specific interpretation of Section 9. Given that a separate termination clause exists, it is possible courts would not support this interpretation. If I had to take a guess, I would argue their best chance to kill the old licence would involve copyright law rather than contract law..They could simply withdraw the offer for third-parties to distribute copies of the licence itself. I suspect this approach is viable, but not immune to challenge. Existing licensees could point to the requirement within the licence itself. They might also have a reliance-based argument. New licensees might be I'm a more tenuous position, but given the OGL gives existing licensees the right to grant sublicenses this is not insoluble.Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Prime_Evil, post: 8885110, member: 11984"] I suspect what you are saying is true. If WotC want to offer content associated with OneDnD under a different licence to the one used by previous editions, that is entirely their prerogative. I suspect they will ring-fence the new material, clearly labelling it as Licensed Content rather than Open Game Content. I also think the use of Licensed Content will require licensees to agree to a waiver of their rights under the OGL v1.0a. The wording will matter as it may be possible for companies to spin off a subsidiary at arm's length to publish OneDnD material if the wording is loose. I suspect lawyers acting for Hasbro will be aware of this potential loophole. At the same time, I suspect WoTC will not be able to unilaterally terminate the OGL v.1.0. I am not yet aware of any plausible mechanism they could use to do this. Reliance on the concept of "de-authorisation" as some people have speculated seems risky. It relies upon a specific interpretation of Section 9. Given that a separate termination clause exists, it is possible courts would not support this interpretation. If I had to take a guess, I would argue their best chance to kill the old licence would involve copyright law rather than contract law..They could simply withdraw the offer for third-parties to distribute copies of the licence itself. I suspect this approach is viable, but not immune to challenge. Existing licensees could point to the requirement within the licence itself. They might also have a reliance-based argument. New licensees might be I'm a more tenuous position, but given the OGL gives existing licensees the right to grant sublicenses this is not insoluble. Does this sound like a reasonable interpretation? [/QUOTE]

Verification