Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8908577" data-attributes="member: 8461">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&amp;D 3.5).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Alzrius, post: 8908577, member: 8461"] I'm given to understand that a publisher can't proactively go to court to assert that the OGL v1.0a is [I]not[/I] 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). [/QUOTE]

Verification