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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
that does not mean it is revocable, only that if it were written today it should include that word…
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.
