My thoughts on the new OGL v1.2 draft

[aco175]

Sometimes a slow, deliberate process of getting feedback and then making a decision beats a kneejerk reaction to do silly things. This leads to the question though about trusting the process since there is assertions of not reading comments of the development of the 1D&D game. There is also trust problems from trying to jam this down out throats a few weeks ago in the first place. I am willing to give some slack. Many have already pointed out that what they came up with is better than first thought.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Aspirinsmurf: see my post re first case.

eyeheartawk: see my post re second case.

That analysis is tortured and wouldn't survive even brief contact with the judicial system where I live.

 

[pemerton]

That analysis is tortured and wouldn't survive even brief contact with the judicial system where I live.

Which analysis is tortured?

I gather you're a Norwegian lawyer?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Which analysis is tortured?

I gather you're a Norwegian lawyer?

Not a lawyer. Just a consumer activist.

 

[pemerton]

Not a lawyer. Just a consumer activist.

The OGL is not a consumer licence. It's a commercial licence. I don't know if that's relevant in Norwegian law.

Which analysis is tortured?

 

[eyeheartawk]

There are orphaned works entangled in those ecosystems. So this is impossible. It's a nuclear wasteland at that point.

Right.

How many books are out there that the creator hasn't even thought about in ages and has no intention to?

If the content in your book, requires that creator to actively do a thing to relicense under ORC or CC or whatever for you to use it again, I don't see how it doesn't blow a huge planet sized hole in a ton stuff.

 

[xiphumor]

I'm not entirely sure if this is to our advantage. I'd personally much rather get sued as a consumer activist in Norway than having to go against WotC in the US state of Washington.

But under the OGL 1.2, you would be sued in the US state of Washington, not in Norway.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

But under the OGL 1.2, you would be sued in the US state of Washington, not in Norway.

I haven't agreed to those terms. And I never will.

 

[pemerton]

If the content in your book, requires that creator to actively do a thing to relicense under ORC or CC or whatever for you to use it again, I don't see how it doesn't blow a huge planet sized hole in a ton stuff.

What sort of scenario are you worried about?

Suppose that W(otC) licenses to A who produces a work containing OGC X that is derivative of W's OGC and also OGC Y that is not derivative of W's OGC..

Suppose further, purely for the sake of argument, that W successfully ends the licence in respect of their OGC.

Finally, suppose that B now wishes to publish a work containing X and/or Y. If they publish X, they may be infringing W's copyright, and they have no licence from W. So they would be relying on a sub-license from A. Given the supposition in the previous paragraph, A may lack such a power.

On the other hand, if B publishes Y then they have a licence from A to do so, set out (using the text of the OGL) in A's work.

I don't see that there is any need for A to relicense. That seems unnecessary in respect of Y, and ineffective in respect of X given that W has not agreed to any other licence regime.

 

[pemerton]

I haven't agreed to those terms. And I never will.

You're quoting the wrong person.