Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8892107" data-attributes="member: 42582">The following <a href="https://gizmodo.com/dnd-wizards-of-the-coast-ogl-1-1-open-gaming-license-1849950634" target="_blank">appears in the Gizmodo article</a>:One of the biggest changes to the document is that it updates the previously available OGL 1.0 to state it is “no longer an authorized license agreement.” By ending the original OGL, many licensed publishers will have to completely overhaul their products and distribution in order to comply with the updated rules.At the time this was published, multiple posters on this forum with legal expertise had expressed the view that WotC has no power to "end" the original OGL, in the sense of unilaterally brining to an end the permissions enjoyed under licence by existing licensees.I'm not worried.Quite a way upthread, the following was posted by a legal expert:I replied that I thought <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f44d.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt="(y)" title="Thumbs up    (y)"  data-smilie="22"data-shortname="(y)" /> is what is happening.Since then I've thought it's may be plausible that there is a bit of (x) as well, but it's not clear. But to me there has definitely been a lot of needless confusion spread, at least in some of the discussions on these boards, by posters who don't appear to be very familiar with some of the basic legal elements in play.There has been some discussion of this. I raised in post 190 upthread. [USER=7035905]@DavyGreenwind[/USER] raised it in post 1436. And I saw that [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] replied to you.Here is a further thought:Suppose, for the sake of argument, that WotC has a contractual obligation to X, a licensee pursuant to the OGL v 1.0a, to keep the licence on foot. And then WotC purports to revoke the licence, and then proceeds against X for copyright infringement. X pleads in their defence that they enjoy a licence to do what their doing. For WotC to succeed in confining X to damages for breach of contract, they have to establish that they can rely on their unlawful (because contract-breaching) revocation in determining the nature of the legal relationship between them and X.I don't know if US contract law permits WotC to do that. But to me it's not obvious that they can. And I agree with [USER=463]@S'mon[/USER] that X succeeding in their defence in this context is not the same as receiving an affirmative order for specific performance.</blockquote>

Verification