mamba
Hero
I hope soI'm hearing the conversation from industry people and 3pp's beginning to shift from speculating about the legality or lack thereof of "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a to how to get 3pp's organized and start prepping for legal action.
I hope soI'm hearing the conversation from industry people and 3pp's beginning to shift from speculating about the legality or lack thereof of "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a to how to get 3pp's organized and start prepping for legal action.
Some sources would be appreciated. I'm out of the loop.I'm hearing the conversation from industry people and 3pp's beginning to shift from speculating about the legality or lack thereof of "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a to how to get 3pp's organized and start prepping for legal action.
WoTC must back down on "deauthorizing" OGL1.0a. They are set on a disastrous course. This is not going to end well for anybody. Back down ASAP, WoTC.
I was not asking what scenario you envision could lead to WotC’s downfall. I was talking about our analogy. So basically WotC can only win here according to you, i.e. get what they wanted all along at minimal losses to them but large losses to the 3pp. Is that about correct?
Not so IF wizards of the coasts shenanigans are found to be setting a precedent for other open licenses outside of just the tabletop gaming world, for example, software.that is not how this works. WotC has to be the one suing, everyone else simply needs to keep on using it![]()
It's more of a gut instinct than quotable sources or anything like that. Hanging out on enworld puts you more in the loop than you appear to realize. There are industry folks that hang out around here.Some sources would be appreciated. I'm out of the loop.
I said in the OGL 1.2 FAQ they mention adding more to CC and 1.2. It is the lasts question in the FAQ:I Thought the 1.2 only mentioned the 5.1 SRD. All the others are still in question.
And here's another attitude I think we're going to be seeing more of as the weeks and months go on: just laughing in their face and giving them theI hope so
We will keep using the OGL[1.0a]. There’s no language in it that allows it to be revoked or retroactively curtailed. I am going to keep making games and books for people to enjoy!
so Chris Cocks bought some shares in the last 12 months, not really all that interesting. Wonder if he regrets that![]()
Bullish insiders bet US$1.1m on Hasbro, Inc. (NASDAQ:HAS)
Over the last year, a good number of insiders have significantly increased their holdings in Hasbro, Inc. ( NASDAQ:HAS...finance.yahoo.com
It's all about timing. If I were a trader, I'd be poising myself to buy hasbro, although I'd wait for it to hit where I think is going to be rock bottom. Guessing is the fun part! Or if you had some inside info that this was coming, you could short sell all your hasbro. But I guess that's not what Cocks did.so Chris Cocks bought some shares in the last 12 months, not really all that interesting. Wonder if he regrets that![]()
That's fine for anything new. OGL1.0a is perpetual and thus irrevocable. There is no means under OGL 1.0a to revoke or "deauthorize" it. That power is not granted to WotC under the license. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and can be used to develop anything new perpetually. If they were to do a new SRD under a new OGL, fine. They cannot undo a perpetual license and thus the only choice will be battles in court if they attempt to do so. This affects far more than just TTRPGs and you will see (at least at an appellate level) dozens to hundreds of corporations with market caps above $5 billion get involved if WotC/Hasbro decides to die on this hill.First, I don't have an adversary in this. The OGL 1.0(a) already framed the conversation and didn't do it well. The OGL 1.2 can do it better. I prefer sound legal language to protect more than anything else.
OK, I don't see how this is a response to what I said, but I don't have any issue with what you are saying. I still want an OGL 1.2 that is a better legal document. I have never said I wanted OGL 1.0(a) to be deauthorized and I have repeatedly said I don't think it can be.That's fine for anything new. OGL1.0a is perpetual and thus irrevocable. There is no means under OGL 1.0a to revoke or "deauthorize" it. That power is not granted to WotC under the license. SRD 5.1 was released under OGL 1.0a and can be used to develop anything new perpetually. If they were to do a new SRD under a new OGL, fine. They cannot undo a perpetual license and thus the only choice will be battles in court if they attempt to do so. This affects far more than just TTRPGs and you will see (at least at an appellate level) dozens to hundreds of corporations with market caps above $5 billion get involved if WotC/Hasbro decides to die on this hill.
Okay, that's cool I have no problem with a new OGL 1.2 for new SRD other than the fact that I believe anybody would be fool to gamble their business on such a license, especially with the garbage they already posted, but if that's where WotC wants to go and somebody is willing to sign onto that license, that's their problem, not mine.OK, I don't see how this is response to what I said, but I don't have any issue with what you are saying. I still want an OGL 1.2 that is a better legal document. I have never said I wanted OGL 1.0(a) to be deauthorized and I have repeatedly said I don't think it can be.
sounds far fetched, so you object the revocation of 1.0a because maybe sometime in the future you want to work on a VTT that uses it.We should remember maybe Hasbro shouldn't worry about the 3PPs but big fishes, true heavyweight in the entertaiment industry, and these megacorporations could be interested because their own reasons the 1.1a to be not unauthorized. Why? To can sell their own VTT or CRPG. These megacorporations can hire good lawyers, or offer licences of their own IPs.
No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable and does not include the legal language that makes it irrevocable under the law as it has evolved since its original creation. It includes language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized, which in effect revokes the license. And this is exactly how WOTC is interpreting that language. These flaws are precisely why the current situation is even possible. Finally, OGL 1.0(a) is written and copyrighted by WOTC. A truly open license would be maintained and enforced by an independent 3rd party, usually a non-profit or law firm. This is how Creative Commons works, and how the proposed ORC license will work.Please correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't OGL1.0(a) already do what you suggest the new OGL should do?
I know at least ten attorneys who disagree with your assessment completely. That does not even take into account the attorneys who wrote OGL 1.0a and the team that put everything together at WotC.No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable and does not include the legal language that makes it irrevocable under the law as it has evolved since its original creation. It includes language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized, which in effect revokes the license. And this is exactly how WOTC is interpreting that language. These flaws are precisely why the current situation is even possible. Finally, OGL 1.0(a) is written and copyrighted by WOTC. A truly open license would be maintained and enforced by an independent 3rd party, usually a non-profit or law firm. This is how Creative Commons works, and how the proposed ORC license will work.
that does not mean it is revocable, only that if it were written today it should include that word…No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable and does not include the legal language that makes it irrevocable under the law as it has evolved since its original creation
Indeed. If the OGL 1.0(a) isn't watertight in the way it was intended to be, that would at the very least harm the professional reputation of Brian E. Lewis, the lawyer who drafted it. He currently works at Azora Law and is involved in the ORC.I know at least ten attorneys who disagree with your assessment completely. That does not even take into account the attorneys who wrote OGL 1.0a and the team that put everything together at WotC.