Aspirinsmurf
Hero
I think you sum it up in #2,161. Why wouldn't this evidence be considered? It seems crucial to me, along with the representations they made when they first launched the OGL and in the FAQs.
My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft
I think you sum it up in #2,161. Why wouldn't this evidence be considered? It seems crucial to me, along with the representations they made when they first launched the OGL and in the FAQs.
xiphumor
Legend
Great! I approve! But that still means the case wouldn’t show up in Norway. That’s my only point.
That will depend on principles of construction, of evidence, and other things in the jurisdiction where the matter is heard. WotC would be wanting to confine the matter to the text of the licence. They would also want to argue that reliance on a public-facing FAQ as a guide to the meaning of the licence is not reasonable.
The OGL in your book would simply become meaningless. It's presence won't harm anything, so you don't need to urgently remove it or anything. It's just a wasted page.
As for how an new o alternative license now applies to your book--depends on the verbiage of the licence as to what changes you need to make and how quickly. I assume ORC or something similar will make that as painless as possible. I imagine there could be a structure where you don't have to do anything to the book itself--when we published Judge Dredd, we didn't have to include a copy of our license with Rebellion in the book.
This doesn't seem right to me. WotC's decisions about the terms on which it licenses its copyright material - assuming it has the power to make such decisions - don't seem to me to affect contracts made between other parties about how they license their copyright material to one another.
OB1
Jedi Master
@Morrus regarding the morality clause, would it be acceptable to allow WotC to suspend the offending licensee pending and independent review of the material by an independent third party. This would allow WotC to move quickly against truly harmful content, while putting in a safeguard against WotC abusing that authority.
But we're talking about people choosing to switch to a different license such as ORC, and how onerous the task is of how that license filters through. Which depends on the terms of that license. As I said, it could be an easy process, depending on the license.
Sure. But I think the idea that work will be orphaned without a switch to ORC is exaggerated. Whatever WotC does vis-a-vis the licences they have granted in terms of OGL v 1.0a, they can't affect al the other contracts between all the other licensors and licensees who have used that licence.
Some of those other contracts concern OGC which might infringe WotC's copyright if published without a licence from WotC (eg because some OGC is derivative of WotC's OGC). ORC can't save that work.
But many of them concern OGC which is not connected to anything copyright WotC. And that work remains licensed and licensable in terms of the OGL v 1.0a without any need to move to ORC.
I've never suggested anything like that. Frankly, I'm very much on record as saying I don't even believe WotC can de-auth the OGL (though man that's a debate that's getting old, and doesn't need to be rehashed here.)
I'm talking about this from the perspective of a creator community of non-SRD derived stuff (eg Fate or Traveller) which now chooses to ignore the OGL completely and move to a new license. Cut WotC out of the equation voluntarily, and how easy or not that would be.
Similar Threads
