Hypothetical: I ignore OGL 1.x

[DEFCON 1]

Paizo said they would in their press release yesterday.

And I hope they do.

Because at some point someone outside the OGLosphere needs to come in and make a determination whether things like irrevocability, and authorization are implied or not implied with the license.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To be clear, I am not thinking of doing this. I just want to know how it plays out from beginning to end.

in theory if you walk the tight rope of what is and is not copy writeable (and others have done so, meaning you can cheat a bit by looking at other products without an OGL) you still may get a C&D letter... if you do you will need to retain a lawyer, one that KNOWS you are in the right and is good...

Unless you created the greatest 3pp book I doubt you could afford the costs to prove you were right... unless you are independently wealthy, i that case could you adopt me.

 

[dave2008]

Unless you created the greatest 3pp book I doubt you could afford the costs to prove you were right... unless you are independently wealthy, i that case could you adopt me.

What are the costs though? I could defend myself (risky but possible - I'm pretty good). I don't think court cost are that much if we make it snappy - which I would (I am that good). As was pointed out to me in another thread, there could be damages, but that wouldn't be much (again, I am that good). And on the flip side, I would win. Once I do that I think a little Gofundme would cover my expenses.

 

[mamba]

Then once that's been determined they to take you to court and probably make a copyright case against you.

they have to first prove that 1.0a can in fact be revoked, otherwise no copyright was violated. At that point you could theoretically still accept the 1.1 instead of going down the copyright violation route too

I think that's where it gets a lot more dangerous for WotC, because potentially they could fail to prove they have copyright on a bunch of stuff people were acting like they did.

agreed, they might shoot themselves in the foot and just prove that the OGL was not needed in the first place

 

[Ruin Explorer]

they have to first prove that 1.0a can in fact be revoked, otherwise no copyright was violated. At that point you could theoretically still accept the 1.1 instead of going down the copyright violation route too

agreed, they might shoot themselves in the foot and just prove that the OGL was not needed in the first place

I'm not sure you could accept just 1.1, but if you got this far, you probably wouldn't want to so I think it's a moot point.

 

[Haplo781]

they have to first prove that 1.0a can in fact be revoked

They don't actually.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What are the costs though? I could defend myself (risky but possible - I'm pretty good). I don't think court cost are that much if we make it snappy - which I would (I am that good). As was pointed out to me in another thread, there could be damages, but that wouldn't be much (again, I am that good). And on the flip side, I would win. Once I do that I think a little Gofundme would cover my expenses.

there is a thing about what being your own client makes you...

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure you could accept just 1.1, but if you got this far, you probably wouldn't want to so I think it's a moot point.

I am not 100% sure either, but to me it is reasonable. The first issue to sort out in the court is: is the 1.0a still a valid license? If the answer is no, I do believe you can say 'oh, did not realize that' and accept the 1.1. It's an 'open' license so who is going to stop you...

Only if you do not do that and in a second step could they then sue for copyright infringement. Just disproving 1.0a as protection does not show a copyright violation.

 

[mamba]

They don't actually.

care to explain why?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

they have to first prove that 1.0a can in fact be revoked, otherwise no copyright was violated.

okay... so you are going to try to go up against a major corporations law team... with what again?