OGL and ORC; A Marriage made in Heaven?

[rcade]

Their position is that they are part of those agreements, because they own the OGL's copyright. Hence their purporting that they can revoke the license (though that remains iffy). In the event that they're right, they can refuse to let anyone else publish new material under the OGL v1.0a, whether it uses their SRDs or not.

This is like arguing that the Free Software Foundation could kill all existing rights under the GPL because it owns the copyright in the license. If Hasbro/WOTC took that position the most powerful entities in the open source software world would get involved because it would be a catastrophically disastrous precedent for them.

 

[rcade]

WotC's position from the FAQ is that the OGL, the license is de-authorized. Not their SRD as OGC under the license.

If they don't stop the OGL entirely with de-authorization, they don't stop 5e OGC from continuing.

Hasbro/WOTC's claim to the SRD is different than its claim to the license. There's no precedent for killing an open source license by forbidding the license itself from being copied. The publishers that used the OGL are entitled to continue to derive the benefits of its use. Publishers that wanted their games to keep being developed by the public (like West End Games with its D6 games) are entitled to that.

Of all the things Hasbro could attempt in court, trying to stop reuse that has nothing to do with the SRD seems the least likely. There isn't enough to be gained. They could lose in court and it could impact their ability to scare off publishers reusing the SRD -- which is already working because commercial publishers are shifting away from the OGL as fast as they can.

 

[Alzrius]

This is like arguing that the Free Software Foundation could kill all existing rights under the GPL because it owns the copyright in the license. If Hasbro/WOTC took that position the most powerful entities in the open source software world would get involved because it would be a catastrophically disastrous precedent for them.

Sure, but that's with regard to whether or not they can revoke the OGL v1.0a at all (which I don't think they can), which isn't the subject that you broached. Rather, you put forward the idea that WotC "has no involvement" in any games released under the OGL that don't use one of their SRDs, and that's not correct. It's their license, under their copyright, which means that they are necessarily involved in anything released under it.

 

[rcade]

Sure, but that's with regard to whether or not they can revoke the OGL v1.0a at all (which I don't think they can), which isn't the subject that you broached. Rather, you put forward the idea that WotC "has no involvement" in any games released under the OGL that don't use one of their SRDs, and that's not correct. It's their license, under their copyright, which means that they are necessarily involved in anything released under it.

In the situation we're discussing it has no involvement in the specific agreement between the parties (the originator and the reuser). Hasbro/WOTC is not bound by the terms of the OGL when someone reuses D6 Fantasy or any other original work contributed to open gaming under the OGL. The reuser of D6 Fantasy equally has no obligations to Hasbro.

 

[Alzrius]

In the situation we're discussing it has no involvement in the specific agreement between the parties (the originator and the reuser). Hasbro/WOTC is not bound by the terms of the OGL when someone reuses D6 Fantasy or any other original work contributed to open gaming under the OGL. The reuser of D6 Fantasy equally has no obligations to Hasbro.

The reuser of D6 Fantasy does have an obligation to Hasbro, that being to follow the agreements of the Open Game License, which Hasbro owns. If they declare compatibility with a trademark or registered trademark without a separate agreement that allows for them to do so, for instance, they're in violation of Section 7. If they don't rectify that within thirty days, Hasbro would be the ones who enforce the termination provision of the OGL (Section 13).

Likewise, in the event that Hasbro received a court ruling in their favor about whether or not they could revoke the OGL, they'd subsequently be able to disallow any new publications under said OGL, even if they didn't use any of their SRDs.

 

[Remathilis]

To be blunt, even if WotC deauthorizes 1.0a, it's only going to monitor violations pertaining to D&D. If you print a book using the d6 SRD, they won't be sending lawyers to you. Simply put, you're not using their material and are not directly competing, you're not worth the billable hours.

And it will all be moot anyway once ORC is available. WotC has no say in that. Once ORC exists as a separate licence, anything you could do with 1.0a is doable under ORC, except use WotC's toys. For that, you play their game with the new OGL.

What I'm getting at is the doomsday scenario isn't as bad as seems as long as viable alternatives exist.

 

[Alzrius]

To be blunt, even if WotC deauthorizes 1.0a, it's only going to monitor violations pertaining to D&D. If you print a book using the d6 SRD, they won't be sending lawyers to you. Simply put, you're not using their material and are not directly competing, you're not worth the billable hours.

I wonder...

If WotC de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, and then does nothing about people ignoring that and using it anyway for non-D&D purposes, it would undercut the force and effect of that revocation. Not necessarily legally, but simply in practical terms of getting people to stop using it. I'm not sure they'd be as blasé as you're describing.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I wonder...

If WotC de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, and then does nothing about people ignoring that and using it anyway for non-D&D purposes, it would undercut the force and effect of that revocation. Not necessarily legally, but simply in practical terms of getting people to stop using it. I'm not sure they'd be as blasé as you're describing.

It'd certainly be interesting to see how that panned out.
Do they simply allow people to ignore them and risk everyone doing it, or forge ahead with a case with a pretty good chance of losing?
Does everyone back down at the first C&D letter without it ever seeing a courtroom because they know they can't afford to fight it?
Do they try and settle early and try to obsfucate it as them trying to be nice rather than admit they know they can't win? Do they pull out some tricks we haven't thought of to try and actually win the case?
Do they pick out the people doing that and offer them better terms than 1.1/2.0 and get them all onboard?

 

[Remathilis]

I wonder...

If WotC de-authorizes the OGL v1.0a, and then does nothing about people ignoring that and using it anyway for non-D&D purposes, it would undercut the force and effect of that revocation. Not necessarily legally, but simply in practical terms of getting people to stop using it. I'm not sure they'd be as blasé as you're describing.

I'm fairly sure WotC thinks that the OGL is for using D&D SRD stuff and the very notion other companies made srds for non d20 systems under 1.0a hasn't crossed their minds. They want to control what people do with their toys, it's right in the leak. Anyone else's toys that are in the OGL toybox aren't their concern. If they break while WotC it's gathering D&D's toys, it's collateral damage but they aren't aiming to break them purposefully.

 

[rcade]

The reuser of D6 Fantasy does have an obligation to Hasbro, that being to follow the agreements of the Open Game License, which Hasbro owns.

That's not an obligation to Hasbro. It's an obligation to the creator of D6 Fantasy, the work they're reusing. Hasbro is not the entity that would be invoking the Termination clause because it did not license D6 Fantasy to others. There is no language in the Open Game License that makes Hasbro the enforcer of every use of the license. There was no desire expressed by WOTC when the license was created to be the central authority over license enforcement.