Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Anon Adderlan" data-source="post: 8892219" data-attributes="member: 53053">This is a long tedious reply to a long tedious subject, but this discussion has been quite comprehensive and I wanted to reply for my own records. Thankfully folks like [USER=1772]@bmcdaniel[/USER] have said much of what I wanted to <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/page-8#post-8880148" target="_blank">here</a> and <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/hello-i-am-lawyer-with-a-psa-almost-everyone-is-wrong-about-the-ogl-and-srd-clearing-up-confusion.694192/page-11#post-8881340" target="_blank">here</a>. I did stop reading at post #600 however as I simply do not have the time, though it's likely all the points I would want to see made have been. The TLDR is:<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">'Unauthorization' is not a legal concept nor defined in the license.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">There's a termination clause and it does not specify that #WotC has either the power to unauthorize or revoke the license at will.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The rights are granted between contributors, not #WotC and named third parties.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">You cannot interfere with contracts you are not a party to, even if you wrote the contract.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">This is an attempt to intimidate customers through legal ambiguity rather than legal action which is costly for everyone.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Organizations whose entire mission is to protect these rights will likely step up if legal action is taken, and in fact <a href="https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators" target="_blank">the EFF has already made their position clear</a>.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">The first avenue of attack will be persuading distribution channels such as #DriveThruRPG and #Kickstarter to cease carrying non-compliant products.</li> </ul>No, it grants a license to use 'Open Game Content' in exchange for not using 'Product Identity' or making claims as to compatibility.There's a termination clause, so by definition it is 'revokable', but only if the terms of that clause are breached.Just because you wrote a contract doesn't mean you can revoke it at will.The rights are granted by 'contributors', not by #WotC to named parties. And you become a contributor by creating content and declaring it either 'Open Game Content' or 'Product Identity'. #WotC cannot revoke a contract between such contributors. They cannot declare the contract revoked simply by claiming it's "no longer authorized", which is neither established legal language nor defined in the license. The new license can only invalidate use of the previous one if the subject sighs it.If the license is revoked the effects would be retroactive.Yes, it is. And if you can express the same mechanical process in a different way you're not violating copyright.Check the patent filed by #WotC regarding #MtG.Of course it is. That's why it was licensed under a copyright license to begin with.Perhaps. But the courts aren't exactly charitable to those who attempt to treat copyright issues as trademark or patent ones.The majority of RPGs are 'derivative' works, so that point is largely moot. And D&D itself is derivative of the works of H. P. Lovecraft, Fritz Lieber, Jack Vance, Robert E. Howard, J. R. R. Tolkien, etc. So one has to wonder what claims #WotC can make, or even what the D&D brand actually consists of. And this hobby involves creating derivate works by definition. Unlike other media an RPG requires you to create your own content in order to engage. Hell the OGL itself requires modification by adding your declarations of Open Game Content and Product Identity to it.No, they didn't. They lost, dropped their appeal, and then published a modified 'unofficial' version, likely after an undisclosed settlement. Before this they ran a Wiki, which they were allowed to proceed with because it wasn't 'commercial'. It also involved content copied verbatim, and referencing trademarks like Harry Potter®.Despite use of the term there are no sub-licenses, as all such right are between 'contributors'.No, an open license is a contract which is 'signed' by virtue of publishing under it. It is a contract between all such contributors. And even if a set of contributors agree to 'revoke' their contract, they cannot make that choice for those contributors who choose not to.The OGL is not a unilateral contract. A promise is made to permit the use of Open Game Content in exchange for not using Product Identity or making claims of compatibility.The contract is between 'contributors', not #WotC.Yes, it is. And they've already made favorable deals with #Kickstarter, likely in exchange for some say in which projects are permitted.Indeed, and should #WotC decide to pursue this line of attack they'll have more to worry about from the organizations dedicated to defending those precedents.It's not, and it's telling that #WotC said "no longer authorized" rather than "revoked".If you haven't used any of #WotC's Open Game Content then they are not a party to the contract you agreed to.'Perpetual' is a duration.Even if this avenue could be taken eventually it would only allow them to revoke the right to use their Open Game Content, not anyone else's.It means that any content licensed under the OGL 1.0a cannot be licensed under the OGL 1.1.I believe this is accurate.#WotC doesn't care. And maybe that wouldn't be so bad.All kidding aside this is genuinely significant.At the time of the license creation #WotC found that publishing 'support' products cost them more money than allowing third party publishers to take that burden and thereby created an entire 'D20' ecosystem. Then actual plays like #CriticalRoll accelerated that popularity even further. Now for some reason #WotC feel they're losing more money by not charging these free promoters.I'm all but certain they consider the 'old' fanbase to be a liability, and have no issue alienating them.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.Yes.By requiring reproduction to use #WotC has implicitly granted licensors the right to copy the license.The legal ambiguity is by design and it's not the first time #WotC has weaponized it.</blockquote>

Verification