Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Staffan" data-source="post: 8898039" data-attributes="member: 907">Any related case would go something like this:<ol>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">WOTC: Bob's Games is infringing on our copyright. Make them stop, and also make them pay us a billion zillion dollars.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bob's Games: We are not. WOTC has licensed me to reproduce their material according to this license here (OGL 1.0(a)).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">WOTC: That is no longer a valid license. We issued a new version in 2023 with these terms instead (OGL 2.0).</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bob's Games: But it says here that it is perpetual, and that if WOTC issues an updated license I can choose which one we use.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">WOTC: Which authorized version you can use. The OGL 1.0(a) is no longer authorized.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bob's Games: They do not have that ability. Here are a bunch of statements from the people involved in creating the license that they intended it to be irrevocable, and that &quot;authorized&quot; was intended to differentiate between the actually released license and the draft licenses circulated before the actual release.</li>
</ol>At that point, the court has to decide whether the license can be revoked/unauthorized or not. That is precedent that will also affect Paizo and other 3PPs. They have a vested interest in supporting Bob's Games, at least up to this point.Based on how this part shakes out, the question would then be either &quot;Has Bob's Games followed the terms of the license?&quot; if the license is still valid, or &quot;Does Bob's Games' product actually violate WOTC's copyright?&quot; if it's not. I'm not familiar enough with the US court systems to know whether they handle things like this sequentially or all at once. Sequentially would seem more efficient, but who knows?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Staffan, post: 8898039, member: 907"] Any related case would go something like this: [LIST=1] [*]WOTC: Bob's Games is infringing on our copyright. Make them stop, and also make them pay us a billion zillion dollars. [*]Bob's Games: We are not. WOTC has licensed me to reproduce their material according to this license here (OGL 1.0(a)). [*]WOTC: That is no longer a valid license. We issued a new version in 2023 with these terms instead (OGL 2.0). [*]Bob's Games: But it says here that it is perpetual, and that if WOTC issues an updated license I can choose which one we use. [*]WOTC: Which [B]authorized[/B] version you can use. The OGL 1.0(a) is no longer authorized. [*]Bob's Games: They do not have that ability. Here are a bunch of statements from the people involved in creating the license that they intended it to be irrevocable, and that "authorized" was intended to differentiate between the actually released license and the draft licenses circulated before the actual release. [/LIST] At that point, the court has to decide whether the license can be revoked/unauthorized or not. [B]That is precedent that will also affect Paizo[/B] and other 3PPs. They have a vested interest in supporting Bob's Games, at least up to this point. Based on how this part shakes out, the question would then be either "Has Bob's Games followed the terms of the license?" if the license is still valid, or "Does Bob's Games' product actually violate WOTC's copyright?" if it's not. I'm not familiar enough with the US court systems to know whether they handle things like this sequentially or all at once. Sequentially would seem more efficient, but who knows? [/QUOTE]

Verification