So, who can 'authorize' and 'de-authorize' the OGL?

[Morrus]

This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. This is just for fun.

The only reference to authorisation in the OGL v1.0a is in s9:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

• The word 'authorized' appears nowhere else in the document, not even in the 'Definitions' section.
• Nowhere does it say who can authorize the license, or how that is accomplished.
• Therefore, there is no way in the license to de-authorize it. BUT --
• If we accept the premise that 'de-authorization' exists (and we don't), then absent any other information, anybody can 'de-authorize' it.
• And therefore anybody can authorize it.

If WotC 'de-authorizes' the OGL v1.0a, I hereby re-authorize it. According to the license, I have exactly as much ability to do so as WotC has. So do you.

 

[SAVeira]

Well, if I was a betting man and some days I am, I would say that it is going take courts and around 10 years for that to get sorted. However, I am ok with granting Morrus the authorize.

 

[Tazawa]

This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. This is just for fun.

The only reference to authorisation in the OGL v1.0a is in s9:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

• The word 'authorized' appears nowhere else in the document, not even in the 'Definitions' section.
• Nowhere does it say who can authorize the license, or how that is accomplished.
• Therefore, there is no way to de-authorize it. BUT --
• If we accept the premise that 'de-authorization' exists, then absent any other information, anybody can 'de-authorize' it.
• And therefore anybody can authorize it.

If WotC 'de-authorizes' the OGL v1.0a, I hereby re-authorize it. According to the license, I have exactly as much ability to do so as WotC has. So do you.

If you look at the archive of the OGL on the Open Gaming Foundation website, you see that there is a version .02 that was for comment and critique and could not be used at that time. It was not approved.

Open Game License v0.1 Simplified

The next version, 1.0, has a statement that Wizards has approved this version. The same statement is used for 1.0a later.

Open Game License v0.1 Simplified

Neither are statements that the license is authorized, but I think the correct interpretation is that Wizards authorized 1.0 and 1.0a but did not authorize .02.

But the point remains that there is no language in the 1.0(a) licenses that covers de-authorization of a version of the license.

 

[Kinematics]

My view is that "authorization" can only be considered a positive action. As @Tazawa pointed out, draft versions were not authorized. Only when an acceptable version was written was it deemed authorized.

So "authorized" means, "We accepted this as a valid license that we were willing to mark as legitimate." Every license so accepted would be authorized.

De-authorization would basically mean going back in time and changing your mind about accepting a given license draft. It's like saying, "I went to Walmart today" after having gone to Walmart, and then tomorrow saying, "I changed my mind; I didn't go to Walmart yesterday." It's nonsensical, because it already happened; it's an objective fact.

So WotC can authorize a version of the OGL by explicitly stating such (because they're the ones with the copyright on the license), but no one can de-authorize a version of the OGL because authorization isn't a "state" (ie: a value that can be changed back and forth), but instead is an event marker (ie: this was a thing that happened).

 

[Morrus]

My view is that "authorization" can only be considered a positive action. As @Tazawa pointed out, draft versions were not authorized. Only when an acceptable version was written was it deemed authorized.

Well, they weren't 'approved'.

De-authorization would basically mean going back in time and changing your mind about accepting a given license draft. It's like saying, "I went to Walmart today" after having gone to Walmart, and then tomorrow saying, "I changed my mind; I didn't go to Walmart yesterday." It's nonsensical, because it already happened; it's an objective fact.

That's my take. It's a binary state -- a license that as been authorized.
Assuming we accept 'approved' and 'authorized' as legally identical. Otherwise.... nothing was ever authorized anyway?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This is not legal advice. I am not a lawyer. This is just for fun.

The only reference to authorisation in the OGL v1.0a is in s9:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

• The word 'authorized' appears nowhere else in the document, not even in the 'Definitions' section.
• Nowhere does it say who can authorize the license, or how that is accomplished.
• Therefore, there is no way in the license to de-authorize it. BUT --
• If we accept the premise that 'de-authorization' exists (and we don't), then absent any other information, anybody can 'de-authorize' it.
• And therefore anybody can authorize it.

If WotC 'de-authorizes' the OGL v1.0a, I hereby re-authorize it. According to the license, I have exactly as much ability to do so as WotC has. So do you.

Your logic is sound.

 

[DEFCON 1]

This is the thing, isn't it? Does anyone actually want to go ahead and produce a new product under the 1.0a OGL as they ever did and force WotC to sue them? Not just send a C&D but actually take the person to court?

Does anyone dare to make WotC have to defend the reading of the OGL that says they are the ones that can authorize or de-authorize it because they are the ones who wrote it originally?

It is a risk to do so, sure... but then again, if the only other result is the person doesn't sell any new products anyway... then maybe they should just do it? The whole "Ask for forgiveness rather than permission" thing. For all we know... WotC's all-new VTT and products do well enough that they end up being fine with letting people splash around in that one small end of the pool because it's not worth their time to try and get them to stop?

 

[Smackpixi]

Seems like the license applies individually to each work it is used/accepted for. Also seems like there’s no provision, other than violation of its terms, for revoking it. So once a work is published under it, it’s fine and may be reprinted in perpetuity.

It also seems reasonable though that Wizards can cease making it available for use. That the document exists, matters little, what matters is that both parties are offering and accepting for each new work. One side no longer wants to offer it.

Not a lawyer, but that makes logical sense to me.

 

[delericho]

Sadly, it wasn't locked down in the text of the license, but the intent was clearly that once a version was authorized (as with 1.0 and 1.0a) it was authorized perpetually. De-authorization was not intended to be possible.

WotC have managed a de facto deauthorization, however - unless there's a challenge and they lose, everyone will either shift to 1.1/2.0 (if they're mad) or away from the OGL entirely. And with each big player who moves away, the chances of that challenge grow smaller.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Sadly, it wasn't locked down in the text of the license, but the intent was clearly that once a version was authorized (as with 1.0 and 1.0a) it was authorized perpetually. De-authorization was not intended to be possible.

WotC have managed a de facto deauthorization, however - unless there's a challenge and they lose, everyone will either shift to 1.1/2.0 (if they're mad) or away from the OGL entirely. And with each big player who moves away, the chances of that challenge grow smaller.

Yep. Someone is gonna have to step up to the plate and really challenge WotC on their ability to de-authorize 1.0a.