My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[Aspirinsmurf]

For e.g. www.d20pfsrd.com, it's impossible. But that ecosystem has the 3.5 SRD as a core dependency anyway.

 

[Morrus]

For e.g. www.pfsrd.com, it's impossible. But that ecosystem has the 3.5 SRD as a core dependency anyway.

Yes, I'm not talking about WotC-derived content like PF1E. I'm talking about content that WotC has no connetion to at all. For WotC derived content (inclusing our own Level Up) it's an order of magnitude more arduous.

 

[pemerton]

That depends. If there's anything like Justin Alexander's example in the Traveller ecosystem, it could be onerous.

I skimmed Justin Alexander's Twitter thread. It appears to rest on the following false premise: that if WotC revokes/deauthorises the licence, that it cannot be used by anybody.

That claim is false because WotC cannot dictate the terms on which other parties agree to license their copyrighted works to one another. And none of those parties are going to accept the view that they had all conferred a power on WotC to do just that by agreeing to the terms of section 9 among themselves.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Yes, I'm not talking about WotC-derived content like PF1E. I'm talking about content that WotC has no connetion to at all. For WotC derived content (inclusing our own Level Up) it's an order of magnitude more arduous.

Mr. Alexander's work cites OGC from 9 different publishers. If there's anything like that in a non-d20 ecology going back to the early 2000s, you're almost guaranteed that one of those publishers will have gone AWOL. We're talking stuff posted for free on old websites and so on.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I skimmed Justin Alexander's Twitter thread. It appears to rest on the following false premise: that if WotC revokes/deauthorises the licence, that it cannot be used by anybody.

That claim is false because WotC cannot dictate the terms on which other parties agree to license their copyrighted works to one another. And none of those parties are going to accept the view that they had all conferred a power on WotC to do just that by agreeing to the terms of section 9 among themselves.

But his example project also has the 3.5 SRD as a core dependency. If that goes away, he effectively doesn't have a functioning product anymore.

 

[pemerton]

But his example project also has the 3.5 SRD as a core dependency. If that goes away, he effectively doesn't have a functioning product anymore.

That doesn't change the fact that his central premise is false.

As @Morrus and I have posted (independently of one another), if WotC is able to undo its licensing of its material, and people want to keep publishing work that may infringe WotC's copyrights without a licence, then those people will have an issue.

But this is not a consequence of the (false) premise that no one can use the OGL. It's a consequence of the operation of copyright law in the absence of a licence.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

That doesn't change the fact that his central premise is false.

As @Morrus and I have posted (independently of one another), if WotC is able to undo its licensing of its material, and people want to keep publishing work that may infringe WotC's copyrights without a licence, then those people will have an issue.

But this is not a consequence of the (false) premise that no one can use the OGL. It's a consequence of the operation of copyright law in the absence of a licence.

"Functioning" rather obviously means without exposing himself to litigation from WotC, as the latter have agreed not to do under the terms of a perpetual and viral copyleft license for over 20 years now.

 

[Velderan]

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, @Morrus. It obviously affects you and your team more than most of us so your opinion is greatly appreciated.

 

[Alzrius]

OGL v1.0a. They're still revoking OGL v1.0a. That is still not something I believe, and many others believe -- including themselves at the time -- they can legally or ethically do. It also makes no sense -- "Any previously published content remains licensed under whichever version of the OGL was in effect when you published that content." It's either a valid license or it isn't.

I'm given to understand that a publisher can't proactively go to court to assert that the OGL v1.0a is not revoked, which strikes me as unfortunate. Essentially, they have to keep publishing (new?) OGL v1.0a content after WotC's declared date of revocation, and wait for WotC to take legal action against them. Only then can they assert in court that the license is still in effect.

In other words, publishers must actively court a legal challenge from WotC, and then rise to meet it when it occurs. I suspect that very few publishers are willing to do that; even Paizo seems to prefer to strip the OGL from their products entirely and go it alone under copyright law (which strikes me as wrongheaded, since I'm given to understand that they're more likely to win if they keep using the OGL v1.0a than if they try and say that PF2 and Starfinder are independent games which aren't derivative of D&D 3.5).

 

[eyeheartawk]

It doesn't even have to be tedious, depending on the new license. The new license may say "To comply with this license, simply put a note on your website listing the products you are placing under it" or something equally simple. You might not even have to change the books. Like I said, depends what the new license says.

Yeah, I don't think we're saying it's onerous necessarily, just imagine how many publishers are out there who aren't active anymore, don't care, died etc. Even if it requires a trivial act there are certainly going to be, I imagine, a sizable number of works that just simply would be left untouched. And what do you do at that point if your game uses their open game content?