OGL 1.1... quote the lawyers (and link)

[overgeeked]

Kit Walsh at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an article on the OGL.

Hey @Morrus

 

[Cadence]

Kit Walsh at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an article on the OGL.

"What Wizards of the Coast can’t do is revoke the license, yet continue to hold users to the restrictions in the OGL. If they revoke it, then the people who have relied on the license are no longer under an obligation to refrain from using “Product Identity” if they do so in ways that are fair use or otherwise permitted under copyright law. And unless they are using actually copyrighted material in a way that would infringe copyright, there may be little incentive to agree to such restrictions, let alone the new restrictions and potential royalty obligations of any new version of the OGL that comes along."

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Kit Walsh at the Electronic Frontier Foundation has written an article on the OGL.

The article is interesting but of no use to anyone wanting an open D&D. You still have to walk away from existing content.

 

[Greg Benage]

So a senior staff attorney for EFF believes that, since the license doesn’t say it’s irrevocable, it “seems on its face” that it’s revocable.

Awesome.

 

[Justice and Rule]

So a senior staff attorney for EFF believes that, since the license doesn’t say it’s irrevocable, it “seems on its face” that it’s revocable.

Awesome.

I mean, this statement seems important:

The OGL does not say that it is irrevocable, unfortunately. It’s possible that Wizards of the Coast made other promises or statements that will let the beneficiaries of the license argue that they can’t revoke it, but on its face it seems that they can.

Given what's been said over the years as well as by the writers of the OGL, there's more than just a face here. But even still, it's much safer to move away from D&D and let them go to their crypt like the lonely lich they desire to be.

 

[Greg Benage]

I mean, this statement seems important:

I think so too, but if it’s revocable “on its face,” does that make it more likely for Hasbro to get an injunction? Does it make it more expensive and time-consuming for beneficiaries to argue the other “statements and promises” should prevail?

It’s definitely not an encouraging opinion.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I think so too, but if it’s revocable “on its face,” does that make it more likely for Hasbro to get an injunction? Does it make it more expensive and time-consuming for beneficiaries to argue the other “statements and promises” should prevail?

It’s definitely not an encouraging opinion.

As I understand, injunctions typically require some sort of irreparable harm that can't be compensated monetarily, so it's pretty unlikely in this case.

 

[TerraDave]

The article is interesting but of no use to anyone wanting an open D&D. You still have to walk away from existing content.

According to the article, no you don't. Her point is that a lot of the open content could not be protected by copyright in the first place. With the license gone, you can use that, and then some, as the license is no longer binding.

 

[Greg Benage]

According to the article, no you don't. Her point is that a lot of the open content could not be protected by copyright in the first place. With the license gone, you can use that, and then some, as the license is no longer binding.

This is and always has been true and is also of almost no value to a publisher in the real world.

 

[Nylanfs]

One of the big selling feature of the OGL was that you didn't NEED to keep a lawyer on retainer to make sure you understood and were using the copyright laws correctly. One of the things that I find most annoying when people just say use copyright laws, is that to the vast majority of people, it ISN"T clear, and lawyers that are familiar with them tend to gloss over how complicated they look like from the outside.