If Hasbro Pulls the Plug....

[Pour]

I'd be upset, but I'd keep playing 4e, support the clones as they came about, and probably diversify my play with different systems. But nothing is going to drag me back to 3e.

I'm more interested in a thread 'What if the OGL was somehow revoked'.

 

[Mark CMG]

Creating a 4e clone without infringing copyright would be tricky, though. I think WoTC deliberately made this hard to do, by eg renaming monsters and (. . .)

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272593-laming-up-non-compound-monster-names.html

 

[S'mon]

I'm more interested in a thread 'What if the OGL was somehow revoked'.

I think that would take an Act of Congress and a quiescent Supreme Court. Or a Constitutional Amendment.

 

[wingsandsword]

I'm more interested in a thread 'What if the OGL was somehow revoked'.

Pretty dang unlikely.

When the OGL was created by WotC (pre-Hasbro buyout), they went very far out of their way to make sure it airtight. The only way it can be revoked at all is if a user of the license breaches it, is notified by WotC that they have breached it, and do not remedy the breach within 30 days, and that's on a case-by-case basis for OGL publishers who are not following the terms of the OGL.

The part of the license which says that even if WotC publishes a new version or revision of the license, you can continue to use any prior version of the license also makes it virtually impossible to issue a blanket revocation of the OGL.

The only way the OGL could be revoked outright is with massive changes to US contract law that would be so sweeping that the impact on D&D would be small potatoes compared to what it does to the rest of the country.

I'm sure WotC's lawyers pored over the OGL for any ability to nullify it. If they could have, they would have, just like they revoked the d20 STL not long after 4e came out.

/IANAL disclaimer

 

[Flatus Maximus]

**As it is, the guys who did OSRIC did a very good job avoiding any possibility of a (c)-claim; some of the other existing retro-clones look a bit shakier, though.

Just curious: Do you mind sharing your opinion on which clones are on shakier ground?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I teach copyright law for a living and I could probably do it correctly, were I willing & able to put in the large amount of effort it would require. I think for most people it would be pretty risky, though.

Mostly it would involve a LOT of drudgery with a thesaurus and a williness to make do with some generic terminology.

And, of corse, doing without critters that are unique to D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/272593-laming-up-non-compound-monster-names.html

Ahhh...good times, good times.

 

[Aeolius]

And, of corse, doing without critters that are unique to D&D.

Which can be overcome with semantics.. behold, the Gazer

 

[S'mon]

Just curious: Do you mind sharing your opinion on which clones are on shakier ground?

Well, off-hand: I saw some stuff in Labyrinth Lord I could make a case against, but it was pretty trivial. In the Uk it'd probaby end up being classed as de minimus infringement with peppercorn damages and me paying Daniel Proctor's legal fees.

 

[S'mon]

Which can be overcome with semantics.. behold, the Gazer

Uhm, those are clearly Beholders.

I'm not sure where this "just change the name" meme comes from? Maybe Trade Mark law? Or WoTC's contractual term "Product Identity"? It doesn't bear any resemblance to how copyright functions, anyway. The names of things aren't copyright protectable. For non-literal copying it's the expression of the detailed concept that is protected. Changing the label has no effect.