Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2

[Cadence]

I want to state that I did not intend this to be a lawyer question. My understanding was that they seem settled on that the only interpretations of not authorized involve not being able to invoke section 9 at all. Hence my point is more that someone not legally schooled like them might see this, and hence "by mistake" start building a business on 1.0a to oneD&D conversion for instance. However maybe it might still be an interesting legal question here: Would wizards then somehow could be considered at fault in misleading this person, and hence being an accomplice in the potential copyright infringement?

Sorry, I should have phrased that as "I have a question based on a post in another thread"!

 

[OB1]

Question for the lawyers - If a company uses OGL 1.0a and does NOT include any WotC SRD content in it, would WotC have any grounds to sue?

 

[TerraDave]

Well at least it looks like a license this time.

 

[Steel_Wind]

I want to state that I did not intend this to be a lawyer question. My understanding was that they seem settled on that the only interpretations of not authorized involve not being able to invoke section 9 at all. Hence my point is more that someone not legally schooled like them might see this, and hence "by mistake" start building a business on 1.0a to oneD&D conversion for instance. However maybe it might still be an interesting legal question here: Would wizards then somehow could be considered at fault in misleading this person, and hence being an accomplice in the potential copyright infringement?

The word "accomplice" suggests an intention to be a party to an offense.

No. WotC is pursuing an arguable position concerning matters of contract and licensing. The criminal law has no place in this discussion. At all.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Question for the lawyers - If a company uses OGL 1.0a and does NOT include any WotC SRD content in it, would WotC have any grounds to sue?

You can sue on the thinnest of bases under the common law.

So the question is not a reasonable one, as "grounds" is a wide open term.

Could WotC sue you for some relief for purporting to use 1.0a? Sure.

Problem: this is theoretical speculation now in a vacuum of facts. It is not helpful speculation - as it doesn't really address a concern or answer a specific question in context.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Where can a find OGL 1.2?

It is on DnD Beyond front page or you can get to it from the home page of EnWorld.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

This would prevent several small publishers from joining together to bring a joint action against WOTC, or even prevent a large publisher like Paizo from intervening in a case where WOTC brings an action against a small publisher.

I believe this to be an inaccurate statement of the law regarding intervention

 

[Jolly Ruby]

(IANAL) What does it mean the "notice of deauthorization of OGL 1.0a" is in the new "Introduction to System Reference Document 5.1" and not in the OGL 1.2 draft? Is the OGL 1.0a deauthorized only for the SRD 5.1? What are they trying to do with this?

 

[Greg Benage]

1- Is the specific way they worded irrevocable "meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license" different from the kind of irrevocability we have demanded for OGL v1.0a? Is the legal quagmire about "the offer being perpetual but WotC having the right to no longer make the offer" still a potential problem for the future of this license?

Bumping this question for an answer!

 

[TolkienThePiss]

We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action.

Well that sentence is a humdinger - who trusts Hasbro/WotC to exercise this in good faith?

I think we need some Zaporozhian Cossacks up in here to draft a response.