Looks like Tenkar has withdrawn claim that WoTC are not trying to close down OGL 1.0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbG31kE3exk

It's looking like begun, the OGL Wars have
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=plEiIPmTRUo

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 01:22:29 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 07, 2023, 12:26:42 PM

Quote from: thornad on January 06, 2023, 06:50:00 AM


I hope you are right, but a consensus is forming among knowledgable lawyers that 1.0 can be revoked, and will be.

No, it's not. If you look, it's like 3 to 1 against that view in terms of attorneys chiming in. There is definitely no consensus forming among knowledgeable lawyers in that direction.

Perhaps among general lawyers, who always make the "I'm not an IP expert" caveat to their analysis.

Among the ones with actual IP expertise pretty much all of them say Hasbro absolutely can, and one of the top IP attorneys in the country who is also familiar with Hasbro says their legal team is loaded for bear and out for blood to reclaim the D&D IP from all third parties... and you'd need $2-3 million and 3-4 years just to get it in front of a judge with the type of lawfare they intend to unleash.

But keep smoking that Hopium... I'm sure it'll all work out. [/sarc]

Its not hopium. But it is not clear either.

Under federal copyright law such open 'irrevocable' licenses can be revoked after 35 years. However, the real issue issue is:

1. Can the OGL 1.* be revoked upon notice by the WotC, and
2. Can WotC retroactively revoke the OGL 1.* against existing properties?

As to 1 there is not a hard and fast answer here. Any lawyer that says "Definitely YES or NO!" is not to be trusted.Only a jury and a judge will sort that out.

As to 2 I think the law is a little bit more clear. The language of the license itself uses the term perpetual and is not a gift but an exchange with consideration (accepting the OGl 1.* gives WotC greater rights than under copyright law); that means what it means (subject to the 35 year rule). The WotC FAQ made it clear about 20 years ago that amending the OGL would NOT RESULT IN REVOCATION OF PRIOR OGL. Finally, there is the legal doctrine of 'reliance': if someone says or does something to encourage you to believe they are giving you a right and you act upon those promises or guarantees then they cannot revoke that right after the fact.

So, can WotC revoke the prior OGL moving forward? I don't think so, but I am not the judge that is going to preside over the case or the jury... and I don't want to be one of the parties in that case.

Can WotC retroactively revoke the OGL 1.* as to existing products developed under the OGL 1.* in reliance upon clear language of the text, reinforced by comments from the company, and based upon the reliance doctrine??? I don't think so. The OGL was issued and so many parties have relied upon it I don't think it can be revoked retroactively given the clear and obvious language of the OGL, the clear and obvious statements by WotC, and the the legal concept of 'reliance'.

Quote from: S'mon on January 07, 2023, 05:03:42 PM
Looks like Tenkar has withdrawn claim that WoTC are not trying to close down OGL 1.0 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbG31kE3exk
...

Well that sucks...

Now I have to hope that the WotC suits will hold the course and don't pivot in a year or so because of the outrage...

Please WotC suits, Please hold the course.

Don't listen to the fans! Scorched earth all the way baby!

To some extent the damage is done as most folks will avoid the OGL from this point forward unless they have no choice.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 09:04:57 AM

Quote from: zer0th on January 07, 2023, 08:56:54 AM

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 06, 2023, 09:42:00 AM

Quote from: Svenhelgrim on January 06, 2023, 09:34:11 AM
But they were, all of them, deceived, for another D&D was made. In the land of Washington State in the fires of Seattle, Hasbro forged in secret a master Role-Playing Game, to control all others. And into this game they poured their cruelty, their malice and their will to dominate all life...

Did that joke already...

Quote from: Chris24601 on August 19, 2022, 08:09:52 AM

"One D&D to rule them all.
One D&D to find them.
One D&D to bring them all,
and in the Wokeness bind them."

The funny thing is that this joke was made when the OGL and SRD first appeared in 2000. At least on my corner of the world, people were thinking that it was a trap to kill all other RPGs.

Kevin Seimbedia of Palladium Books also thought it was a trap and refused to let any part of his creations touch the OGL despite fans begging him to get onboard.

I bet he's laughing his ass off right now.

And good for him. The OGL was good for small publishers to write "unofficially official" D&D product, and we had some good stuff come out of that space. But instead of making their own system, they hitched their product to somebody else's IP. And now that's coming around to bite them in the butt.

Quote from: Chris24601 on January 07, 2023, 01:22:29 PM

Quote from: Mistwell on January 07, 2023, 12:26:42 PM

Quote from: thornad on January 06, 2023, 06:50:00 AM


I hope you are right, but a consensus is forming among knowledgable lawyers that 1.0 can be revoked, and will be.

No, it's not. If you look, it's like 3 to 1 against that view in terms of attorneys chiming in. There is definitely no consensus forming among knowledgeable lawyers in that direction.

Perhaps among general lawyers, who always make the "I'm not an IP expert" caveat to their analysis.

I am a lawyer who has represented RPG companies you know which use the OGL and SRD. My opinion differs from the opinion of that the lawyer you are referring to in meaningful ways. Not only that, but I think we pretty well proved that lawyer isn't even an IP lawyer and is a fairly new lawyer in general.

I don't know where this "This is the answer!" attitude is coming from when it comes to the law, but anyone with any real legal experience as an attorney does NOT take a firm stance on a topic like this in public. It's not cut and dried and if you see someone claiming it's cut and dried they are talking out of their ass and inexperienced.

QuoteAmong the ones with actual IP expertise pretty much all of them say Hasbro absolutely can, and one of the top IP attorneys in the country who is also familiar with Hasbro says their legal team is loaded for bear and out for blood to reclaim the D&D IP from all third parties...

And I am telling you that is a flawed view. WHO is the this "top IP attorneys in the country" you're referring to? I've worked with some of the best so I'd love to know their name.

Quoteand you'd need $2-3 million and 3-4 years just to get it in front of a judge with the type of lawfare they intend to unleash.

Oh you're referring to the Alexander Macris rumor I see. OK then. And I am the one on hopium? Wow.

Quote from: Mistwell on January 07, 2023, 08:20:45 PM
I don't know where this "This is the answer!" attitude is coming from when it comes to the law, but anyone with any real legal experience as an attorney does NOT take a firm stance on a topic like this in public. It's not cut and dried and if you see someone claiming it's cut and dried they are talking out of their ass and inexperienced.

I agree fully with Mistwell! 

Hi Mistwell - did you see this skit by Professor Dungeon Master?

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/NeTRyZ0sQb0

I think it's lovely how WoTC has succeeded in finally bringing the RPG community together! 

Quote from: Mistwell on January 07, 2023, 08:20:45 PM
I am a lawyer who has represented RPG companies you know which use the OGL and SRD. My opinion differs from the opinion of that the lawyer you are referring to in meaningful ways. Not only that, but I think we pretty well proved that lawyer isn't even an IP lawyer and is a fairly new lawyer in general.

Even as a Contract lawyer he seemed a bit confused, eg he was mixing up revocation of offer with termination of an existing contract.

The idea that legal opinions from non-IP lawyers don't matter is humorous. A lot of this stuff is just basic contract law combined with judicial rulings and interpretations that are easy to discover. What makes an IP lawyer's opinion more valid? Or not?

An IP lawyer spends most of his time handling just that area of law. He or she reads up on all the latest law on the subject, no matter how obscure and irrelevant for the rest of humanity. He or she gets these obscure newsletters that report on all this stuff. He or she is arguably more up to date with recent legal decisions, even if they are wrong and are most likely going to be overturned on appeal, trends in the industry, gossip about who is screwing who, who is getting hired and fired, etc. That can be useful, but really is not about the law.

IP lawyers can also be very biased and dishonest. An IP lawyer that only gets hired by one side in a legal argument is never going to give an honest analysis about the legal arguments. He or she is only going to give the party line since doing anything else might result in termination by your client who only wants to hear one side of the argument from the lawyer (at least publicly). Being such a lawyer often means most of your job is cheerleading for the client.

I will agree with Mistwell in that any lawyer who claims to know exactly what is going to happen is either a fool or cannot be trusted... or knows the judge way better than is proper. But then it is an old axiom in the law... its more important who you know than what you know.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_dVH-0Yf8o&t=916s&ab_channel=RollofLaw

  I think it is extremely obvious WOTC wants a deeper bite of anyone who dares roll a d20 at a gaming table or makes gaming materials with one.   Probably want a bite of anyone using any dice, I think that "look" is going to be a bad one for them.  It will cause problems I think much more on a PR scale than legal.

We have a full-text leak to the public.

http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on January 09, 2023, 01:04:10 PM
We have a full-text leak to the public.

http://ogl.battlezoo.com/

Quote
Additionally, over time the old OGL incorporated some confusing and even contradictory provisions. It was also written
in fairly dense legal language

So they made it easier to read by bloating the page count by a factor or 1500%?    Amazing logic.

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 09, 2023, 01:50:48 PM
So they made it easier to read by bloating the page count by a factor or 1500%?    Amazing logic.

Since when did logic ever apply to lawyers...

This whole thing just makes me laugh. WotC literally destroying the OSR because they only have 98% market share instead of 100%.

Quote from: Brad on January 09, 2023, 01:53:13 PM

Quote from: THE_Leopold on January 09, 2023, 01:50:48 PM
So they made it easier to read by bloating the page count by a factor or 1500%?    Amazing logic.

Since when did logic ever apply to lawyers...

Only when it determines how many Hours they can bill for.

Here's another gem:

QuoteNon-Commercial only allows for creation of roleplaying games and supplements in printed media and
static electronic file formats. It does not allow for anything else, including but not limited to things like videos, virtual
tabletops or VTT campaigns, computer games, novels, apps, graphics novels, music, songs, dances, and pantomimes,.
You may engage in these activities only to the extent allowed under the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or
separately agreed between You and Us.

That catchy lil into song you play at the beginning of your videos? WOTC owns that now. Fuck you, get a license.

Want to mime a monster?   Nope, can't do that, unless you have a License.

Did the British write this document where you need a license for ever little thing?


Oh the termination clause is BEAUTIFUL
Things Thou Shalt only do with OGL 1.1

Quote
H. You will not use any of the content or works covered by Section I for any harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or
harassing purposes.
I. You will not do anything that could harm Our reputation, that of Dungeons & Dragons, or the reputation of the
Licensed Content or Unlicensed Content. For purposes of clarity, this provision does not apply to criticism of Wizards of
the Coast, Dungeons & Dragons, or the Licensed Content or Unlicensed Content that does not independently violate
these provisions.

Termination Clause:

Quote
Your activities under this
agreement, or if We determine in Our sole discretion that You have violated Section VIII.G or VIII.H. To be clear, We have
the sole right to decide what conduct violates Section VIII.G or Section VIII.H

lol and the part about the *phobias is real!

Quote
We know this may come off strong, but this is important: If You attempt to use the OGL as a basis to release blatantly
racist, sexist, homophobic, trans-phobic, bigoted or otherwise discriminatory content, or do anything We think triggers
these provisions, Your content is no longer licensed.

Wrong Think is Forbidden!  There goes Vengar, Pundit, and Raggi's livelihood.