5 ms·

That attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the opposite: https://medium.com/@MyLawyer

That attorney makes clear they are not an IP lawyer. Here's an IP lawyer, who specifically works in gaming, who says the opposite: https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-talk-about-d-d-s-open-gaming-license-ogl-581312d48e2f https://medium.com/@MyLawyerFriend/lets-take-a-minute-to-tal...

giardia 4y ago
A slight tangent, but it's funny how everyday people are on the hook for legal consequences, even when legal professionals can't agree which laws apply, or even what they mean.
- heavenlyblue 4y ago
  If it went to court then the legal professionals would agree?
  - bee_rider 4y ago
    They would agree on what the ruling was, and agree that it sets some kind of precedent on some level, but not necessarily that it was good.
- readthenotes1 4y ago
  That is why there is the old joke that in a town with only one lawyer the lawyer starves but business picks up when there are two.
- thatguy0900 4y ago
  Even more funny how you can't even ask the government in advance how a particular situation would be resolved, as courts don't rule on hypothetical situations. People on the cutting edge in a lot of spaces really just have to do it and find out the legality later.
  - pixl97 4y ago
    Eh, mock trials are very common. I had a family member that was paid to be a juror in an IP trial in East Texas that was testing the waters.
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      That's different. That's one side of a trial practicing - presenting a case to a mock jury to see what flies and what doesn't. What GP is asking for is a way to get an actual decision from an actual court, before it's needed.
  - hgsgm 4y ago
    Not quite true, you can request an administrative ruling in many circumstances. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/part-1010/subpart-G https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/p... How could it possible for a court to "pre settle" a dispute between 2 private parties , based on only one side presenting their case?
tptacek 4y ago
That post says that the revocability of 1.0a is an unsettled question. There's some precedent in open source licensing that would be hopeful for people hoping to stick with 1.0a, but nobody knows for sure.
throw0101c 4y ago
Meanwhile the guy that wrote the license says: > I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. > He responded as follows: >> Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked. * https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-deauthorize-ogl.694196/ https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-de... If intent matters in contract law, then the intent of the license was (per WotC and its representatives at the time) for it to be non-revocable. WotC had publicly stated that this was their intent: > 7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? > 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. * https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wizard... Further: > Q: What is meant by the term "Open Gaming"? > A: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open. * https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417e https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wizard... So was WotC lying about intent in the past, or are they lying about intent now? If there was deceit, does that open them up to civil action? Regardless, it's doubtful that anyone has the money to battle WotC/Hasbro to settle this in court.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  Ryan Dancey, even and maybe especially as the license's author, is not a lawyer nor qualified to talk about how Hasbro found a potential legal loophole in it that he didn't intend. Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant. He also doesn't have the best track record at anything he touches surviving the experience - Five Rings, Last Unicorn Games, getting laid off from Hasbro two years after the OGL shipped, OPC getting eaten by Alderac, overseeing CCP's marketing during the CCP/White Wolf debacle, architectung the utter failure of Pathfinder Online - such that the guy is like the Forrest Gump of RPG industry failures. Giving Hasbro an OGL loophole 20 years ago would still be top-3 for him but it's like, did somebody botch an RPG IP decision today? Odds are either Dancey or Jordan Weisman were in the room when it happened, even just coincidentally.
jrochkind1 4y ago
I wouldn't say that they say the opposite. They simply say that WotC/Hasbro has stated that they have revoked 1.0a, and whether this is possible or not would be something that would be worked out in court. Those are just facts, not a legal opinion on whether it is revokable at all. > I do believe that there are potential legal challenges to the revocation of OGL 1.0a, especially given the length of time Third Party Creators have relied upon OGL 1.0a and the speed with which WotC has taken action to revoke it. However, these challenges would have to take place in court.
- joe_the_user 4y ago
  Stephan Glicker has follow-up video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8

giardia 4y ago

A slight tangent, but it's funny how everyday people are on the hook for legal consequences, even when legal professionals can't agree which laws apply, or even what they mean.

heavenlyblue 4y ago
If it went to court then the legal professionals would agree?
- bee_rider 4y ago
  They would agree on what the ruling was, and agree that it sets some kind of precedent on some level, but not necessarily that it was good.
readthenotes1 4y ago
That is why there is the old joke that in a town with only one lawyer the lawyer starves but business picks up when there are two.
thatguy0900 4y ago
Even more funny how you can't even ask the government in advance how a particular situation would be resolved, as courts don't rule on hypothetical situations. People on the cutting edge in a lot of spaces really just have to do it and find out the legality later.
- pixl97 4y ago
  Eh, mock trials are very common. I had a family member that was paid to be a juror in an IP trial in East Texas that was testing the waters.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    That's different. That's one side of a trial practicing - presenting a case to a mock jury to see what flies and what doesn't. What GP is asking for is a way to get an actual decision from an actual court, before it's needed.
- hgsgm 4y ago
  Not quite true, you can request an administrative ruling in many circumstances. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/part-1010/subpart-G https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-31/subtitle-B/chapter-X/p... How could it possible for a court to "pre settle" a dispute between 2 private parties , based on only one side presenting their case?

tptacek 4y ago

That post says that the revocability of 1.0a is an unsettled question. There's some precedent in open source licensing that would be hopeful for people hoping to stick with 1.0a, but nobody knows for sure.

throw0101c 4y ago

Meanwhile the guy that wrote the license says: > I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. > He responded as follows: >> Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked. * https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-deauthorize-ogl.694196/ https://www.enworld.org/threads/ryan-dancey-hasbro-cannot-de... If intent matters in contract law, then the intent of the license was (per WotC and its representatives at the time) for it to be non-revocable. WotC had publicly stated that this was their intent: > 7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like? > 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. * https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wizards.com:80/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123f https://web.archive.org/web/20060106175610/http://www.wizard... Further: > Q: What is meant by the term "Open Gaming"? > A: An Open Game is a game that can be freely copied, modified, and distributed, and a system for ensuring that material, once distributed as an Open Game will remain permanently Open. * https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=dt20010417e https://web.archive.org/web/20010429033432/http://www.wizard... So was WotC lying about intent in the past, or are they lying about intent now? If there was deceit, does that open them up to civil action? Regardless, it's doubtful that anyone has the money to battle WotC/Hasbro to settle this in court.

trynewideas 4y ago
Ryan Dancey, even and maybe especially as the license's author, is not a lawyer nor qualified to talk about how Hasbro found a potential legal loophole in it that he didn't intend. Also, Dancey didn't issue the license, WotC did. Intent matters, so the WotC FAQ is relevant IMO, but Dancey's personal intent is irrelevant. He also doesn't have the best track record at anything he touches surviving the experience - Five Rings, Last Unicorn Games, getting laid off from Hasbro two years after the OGL shipped, OPC getting eaten by Alderac, overseeing CCP's marketing during the CCP/White Wolf debacle, architectung the utter failure of Pathfinder Online - such that the guy is like the Forrest Gump of RPG industry failures. Giving Hasbro an OGL loophole 20 years ago would still be top-3 for him but it's like, did somebody botch an RPG IP decision today? Odds are either Dancey or Jordan Weisman were in the room when it happened, even just coincidentally.

jrochkind1 4y ago

I wouldn't say that they say the opposite. They simply say that WotC/Hasbro has stated that they have revoked 1.0a, and whether this is possible or not would be something that would be worked out in court. Those are just facts, not a legal opinion on whether it is revokable at all. > I do believe that there are potential legal challenges to the revocation of OGL 1.0a, especially given the length of time Third Party Creators have relied upon OGL 1.0a and the speed with which WotC has taken action to revoke it. However, these challenges would have to take place in court.

joe_the_user 4y ago
Stephan Glicker has follow-up video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sZ6iTzeiNY8