6 ms·

There is nothing about the OGL that makes it so Wizards can never revoke it. The license states that WotC grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-f

There is nothing about the OGL that makes it so Wizards can never revoke it. The license states that WotC grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, nonexclusive license" to use the SRD (system reference document: the document that provides the D&D rules sans IP content). But "perpetual," in licensing law, does not mean "irrevocable." As it turns out, unless the word "irrevocable" appears in the license, the license can be revoked at any time, for any reason or for no reason. This will make fan content nye impossible to publish.

legerdemain 4y ago
"Nigh." The only kinds of "nye" are Bill and December 31st.
alexvoda 4y ago
If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing. Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.
- Semaphor 4y ago
  While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
  - thayne 4y ago
    But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?
- vintermann 4y ago
  Right. The "gotcha" that this forum lawyer thinks he's found (and thinks Hasbro's lawyers will be going for) sounds very suspect to me.
- djur 4y ago
  The FSF can't revoke the GPLv2, but Linus Torvalds could (for his contributions to Linux). The GPLv3 has explicit language granting irrevocable rights. ETA: The position of the FSF/SFC is that the GPLv2 is also irrevocable: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...
  - Semaphor 4y ago
    Specifically, it seems they say it’s because of > Parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance Which, at least to me as a layperson, does indeed sound like it’s describing "irrevocable" with more words.
    - alexvoda 4y ago
      To me this sounds like it would have the same problem as the OGL. Even if current recepients can still use it, new recepients are blocked. And it is unclear if a current recepient can create new derivatives or nor. If Alice grants Bob lib v1.0 under GPL v2. Bob creates Soft1 v1.0 under GPL v2 using lib v1.0. Alice then revokes the licence on lib v1.0. Bob can still distribute Soft1 v1.0 but can Bob create Soft 1 v2.0 or Soft2 using lib v1.0? Or is he considered a new recepient of lib with each derivative he creates? Can Charlie still get lib v1.0 under GPL v2 from Bob? If the last answer is yes then there is no issue with the current situation either. It would mean you can still get the SDR from anyone who already has the SDR under OGL 1.0 even if directly from WOTC you can only get it under the new license.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    So what would happen if Linus revokes the licence for his contributions? (GPL v2 does not have the word irrevocable. Are we stuck until all his contribs are rewritten. Aren't all contribs to Linux so intertwined as to be derivatives of each other. Which Git commit is a derivative and which isn't?
  - nix23 4y ago
    >but Linus Torvalds could No he cant, he's NOT the owner of 99.9% of the linux kernel code, he is "just" the owner of the trademark "linux" and some code. The Linux-Kernel-Code could just change license if every single contributor (or company) gives the "thump-up", otherwise that code would need to be rewritten.
alexvoda 4y ago
Also, while this is not legally binding, WOTC themselves said they can not just take it away. https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizard... I believe, at the time the OGL v1.0 was written, the intention of irrevocablility was there.
- sharpneli 4y ago
  >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. If it goes to court I bet this quote will be mentioned. They cannot say this and then in small print do the opposite after people have relied on it for two decades.
zephyrfalcon 4y ago
I am curious, then what does "perpetual" mean in licensing law?
- Y_Y 4y ago
  That they are not specifying any particularly expiry time. In that sense it's like a "permanent" job contract.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I am guessing they say it means or want it to mean: That it does not require periodic refreshing. Compare to getting hired and being hired until you are fired vs you can have a fixed duration contract which you would have to explicitly extend otherwise it automatically ends. Or think about an "immortal" who doesn't age but can still be killed. I still think this is weaseling.
Macha 4y ago
Copying my comment from the earlier HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777) So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your own lawyer" thoughts were: 1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable because: - other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being non-revocable - the section on termination only provides for breach of contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing. The fact that it provides some grounds for termination but "we have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument. - There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights to use the covered content. - The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance especially when combined with past clarifying public statements where Wizards official documents and then-active employees indicated it was intended to be non-revocable. - Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses require 35 years and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of revocability than this However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point, but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the previous license and raise the reliance part again --- I will note the different lawyer angling for a publisher lawsuit linked in the Google drive elsewhere makes many of these arguments.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  > However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. This is more or less what Hasbro tried to do with 4E's GSL,[1] which is why nobody used it. 1: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history-part-2 https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games...

legerdemain 4y ago

"Nigh." The only kinds of "nye" are Bill and December 31st.

alexvoda 4y ago

If what you say holds than most software licensing will be turned on it's head. The Apache licence is irrevocable but BSD, MIT, ---GPL and variants---, Eclipse and others say no such thing. Does that mean they are all revocable? Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? Edit: correction the GPL and family are irrevocable. But that still leaves a lot of OSI and FSF approved licenses with no such language.

Semaphor 4y ago
While I agree with what you saying regarding "irrevocable" > Does that mean the FSF can revoke the GPL v2 and force upgrade Linux to v3? No, because what’s revoked is to use something under that license, but only the copyright holder of that something could revoke those rights, not whoever owns the copyright of the license.
- thayne 4y ago
  But the GPLv2 is itself protected by copyright right? Could they revoke the license to that to force anything using GPLv2 to switch to a different license?
vintermann 4y ago
Right. The "gotcha" that this forum lawyer thinks he's found (and thinks Hasbro's lawyers will be going for) sounds very suspect to me.
djur 4y ago
The FSF can't revoke the GPLv2, but Linus Torvalds could (for his contributions to Linux). The GPLv3 has explicit language granting irrevocable rights. ETA: The position of the FSF/SFC is that the GPLv2 is also irrevocable: https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocability/ https://sfconservancy.org/news/2018/sep/26/GPLv2-irrevocabil...
- Semaphor 4y ago
  Specifically, it seems they say it’s because of > Parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance Which, at least to me as a layperson, does indeed sound like it’s describing "irrevocable" with more words.
  - alexvoda 4y ago
    To me this sounds like it would have the same problem as the OGL. Even if current recepients can still use it, new recepients are blocked. And it is unclear if a current recepient can create new derivatives or nor. If Alice grants Bob lib v1.0 under GPL v2. Bob creates Soft1 v1.0 under GPL v2 using lib v1.0. Alice then revokes the licence on lib v1.0. Bob can still distribute Soft1 v1.0 but can Bob create Soft 1 v2.0 or Soft2 using lib v1.0? Or is he considered a new recepient of lib with each derivative he creates? Can Charlie still get lib v1.0 under GPL v2 from Bob? If the last answer is yes then there is no issue with the current situation either. It would mean you can still get the SDR from anyone who already has the SDR under OGL 1.0 even if directly from WOTC you can only get it under the new license.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  So what would happen if Linus revokes the licence for his contributions? (GPL v2 does not have the word irrevocable. Are we stuck until all his contribs are rewritten. Aren't all contribs to Linux so intertwined as to be derivatives of each other. Which Git commit is a derivative and which isn't?
- nix23 4y ago
  >but Linus Torvalds could No he cant, he's NOT the owner of 99.9% of the linux kernel code, he is "just" the owner of the trademark "linux" and some code. The Linux-Kernel-Code could just change license if every single contributor (or company) gives the "thump-up", otherwise that code would need to be rewritten.

alexvoda 4y ago

Also, while this is not legally binding, WOTC themselves said they can not just take it away. https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f https://web.archive.org/web/20040307094152/http://www.wizard... I believe, at the time the OGL v1.0 was written, the intention of irrevocablility was there.

sharpneli 4y ago
>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. If it goes to court I bet this quote will be mentioned. They cannot say this and then in small print do the opposite after people have relied on it for two decades.

zephyrfalcon 4y ago

I am curious, then what does "perpetual" mean in licensing law?

Y_Y 4y ago
That they are not specifying any particularly expiry time. In that sense it's like a "permanent" job contract.
alexvoda 4y ago
I am guessing they say it means or want it to mean: That it does not require periodic refreshing. Compare to getting hired and being hired until you are fired vs you can have a fixed duration contract which you would have to explicitly extend otherwise it automatically ends. Or think about an "immortal" who doesn't age but can still be killed. I still think this is weaseling.

Macha 4y ago

Copying my comment from the earlier HN submission (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34264777) So a gaming podcast had a contract lawyer on to opine on this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDuHjpwx5Q4 Their "this is not specific personalised advice, consult your own lawyer" thoughts were: 1. The license does not specify revocable or irrevocable, but it would be likely a court would find it to be irrevocable because: - other lanaguage in the license such as the perpetual term and the option to use later versions appears to anticipate it being non-revocable - the section on termination only provides for breach of contract and protects sublicenses of the terminated work from being terminated unless the sub licenses were also infringing. The fact that it provides some grounds for termination but "we have a new license" isn't among them hurts their argument. - There is mutual consideration and this is even spelled out in the contract as being consideration in terms of the derivative content being reciprocally licensed, plus the unspecified benefit to Wizards of having more complements to their product increasing its appeal. The licensee obviously gets the rights to use the covered content. - The 23 year usage of OGL 1.0a may constitute reliance especially when combined with past clarifying public statements where Wizards official documents and then-active employees indicated it was intended to be non-revocable. - Clauses in US law for copyright owners to terminate licenses require 35 years and do not affect sublicenses, so unlikely a court would assume a stricter unwritten standard of revocability than this However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. They also touch on the idea of if Wizards could use others OGL 1.0a licensed content under 1.1 which imposes lesser restrictions on wizards than 1.1. They're vaguer on this point, but imply probably not as its too much of a deviation from the previous license and raise the reliance part again --- I will note the different lawyer angling for a publisher lawsuit linked in the Google drive elsewhere makes many of these arguments.

trynewideas 4y ago
> However, they also point out you can waive your rights to use content under 1.0a if you were to agree to 1.1, e.g. to get access to 6e content. This is more or less what Hasbro tried to do with 4E's GSL,[1] which is why nobody used it. 1: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games/open-gaming-license-a-brief-history-part-2 https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/48761/roleplaying-games...