The OGL: Why is this really happening, and what to do now...

[ilgatto]

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.

Well, I was going to ask to what "language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized" you were referring to, but then I happened to stumble upon this little nugget, so now I no longer need to.
That does rather clarify your point as far as I'm concerned.

 

[Festus]

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 imagine that Bob Tarantino too, an IP lawyer who wrote a dissertation on the virtues of the OGL, would also consider it a professional setback if his assessments turned out to be all wrong.

And yet ~1500 3rd party publishers feel the need to sign onto a project to create a replacement, and companies like Kobold Press and MCDM announced or accelerated plans to move away from WOTC and create their own games. There's the academic question of OGL1.0(a)'s revocability/deauthorization, and then there's the practical matter of having the money and risk tolerance to litigate the issue against a billion dollar company. You might win. You might not. Are you able to spend 6 or 7 figures to find out?

As a practical matter not only is 1.0(a) revocable, it may as well already be revoked for projects that aren't already published or substantially underway. Previously published projects should be fine under the doctrine of estoppel. Given their most recent statements WOTC seem to have conceded that ground. But they're still intent on deauthorization and 3rd party publishers are acting as if that's a given.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Well, I was going to ask to what "language that can be interpreted to mean it can be deauthorized" you were referring to, but then I happened to stumble upon this little nugget, so now I no longer need to.
That does rather clarify your point as far as I'm concerned.

They've previously admitted to Section 9 meaning the exact opposite though, in their FAQs:

Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

This carries some legal weight.

 

[Festus]

They've previously admitted to Section 9 meaning the exact opposite though, in their FAQs:

Q: Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

A: Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

This carries some legal weight.

It might. But you don't see the likes of Matt Colville betting their future livelihoods on it, do you?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It might. But you don't see the likes of Matt Colville betting their future livelihoods on it, do you?

I don't presume to speak for anyone else, much less as to their business decisions. But with the conduct on display from WotC in general, I'd personally be wary of going into business with them under any terms going forward.

My personal interests in this debate are to a much greater extent non-commercial and principled. They center on the need to preserve the 20+ years of cultural works as Open Game Content licensed under the aegis of OGL 1.0(a) as a common pool of available expression for adaptation, modification and re-expression.

This collective body of works emphatically includes the likes of owlbears and magic missiles, so WotC's current ideas about the extent of their presumed exclusive intellectual property is an attack on these "commons". And agreements ought to be kept, as a basic moral principle and maxim of law.

 

[Festus]

I don't presume to speak for anyone else, much less as to their business decisions. But with the conduct on display from WotC in general, I'd personally be wary of going into business with them under any terms going forward.

My personal interests in this debate are to a much greater extent non-commercial and principled. They center on the need to preserve the 20+ years of cultural works as Open Game Content licensed under the aegis of OGL 1.0(a) as a common pool of available expression for adaptation, modification and re-expression.

This collective body of works emphatically includes the likes of owlbears and magic missiles, so WotC's current ideas about the extent of their presumed exclusive intellectual property is an attack on these "commons". And agreements ought to be kept, as a basic moral principle and maxim of law.

I 100% agree with you on all of that.

 

[ThorinTeague]

No, it does not. OGL 1.0(a) is not irrevocable

Wizards of the Coast disagrees.

 

[ThorinTeague]

then there's the practical matter of having the money and risk tolerance to litigate the issue against a billion dollar company. You might win. You might not. Are you able to spend 6 or 7 figures to find out?

100% correct, which is why there are some 3pps and interested parties gathering to form a unified group preparing corporately for a potential future legal battle.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wizards of the Coast disagrees.

View attachment 273793

No one seems to have an answer for this. When it's brought up, folks seem to change the subject.

 

[mamba]

It might. But you don't see the likes of Matt Colville betting their future livelihoods on it, do you?

He always wanted to make his own RPG, this just pushed the timeline. You could also see this as entirely strategic, when will there ever be as much interest in D&D alternatives again...