4 ms·

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 Dan

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.
- ladyattis 4y ago
  Actually it does matter since if his testimony and public statements are admissible in court that the legal team at Hasbro or WotC didn't see a problem with the language of his license then any potential loopholes via irrevocability or some such interpretation would still constitute a valid contract even if they didn't see the loophole (ignorance isn't an excuse if you didn't read your own contract/license that you approved for a given set of content).
- hgsgm 4y ago
  When a contract is ambiguous because one side made conflicting statements, the usual resolution is that the other side gets to pick which interprets to use. Especially when the equivocating side is the more professional / powerful side.
- WastingMyTime89 4y ago
  > 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. Dancey was the VP in charge of the product at WotC at the time. Obviously what he says is relevant because he wasn’t talking strictly in his name but in the name of the company.
  - trynewideas 4y ago
    That's great, but Dancey's name isn't on the license, Wizards of the Coast's is. Anyone else at Wizards can contest any statement of intent he makes. Dancey's statement this week also wasn't from his time at Wizards, nor as a representative of the licenser - indeed, he now works at AEG, a competitor with a catalog including OGL v1.0a-licensed works for sale and a vested financial interest in the OGL v1.0a working the way he describes it. The WotC FAQ from that time, again, is relevant IMO. Maybe Dancey wrote it. But it's relevant because Wizards published it. 2022 Ryan Dancey is not.
    - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
      I don’t understand your comment. It doesn’t matter than Dansey’s name isn’t on the license. Writing document exists from the time when he was representing WotC where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual which is the point of him commenting on the whole thing. It’s not about 2022 Dancey. I understand you don’t like the guy but that doesn’t preclude him for saying relevant things.

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.

ladyattis 4y ago
Actually it does matter since if his testimony and public statements are admissible in court that the legal team at Hasbro or WotC didn't see a problem with the language of his license then any potential loopholes via irrevocability or some such interpretation would still constitute a valid contract even if they didn't see the loophole (ignorance isn't an excuse if you didn't read your own contract/license that you approved for a given set of content).
hgsgm 4y ago
When a contract is ambiguous because one side made conflicting statements, the usual resolution is that the other side gets to pick which interprets to use. Especially when the equivocating side is the more professional / powerful side.
WastingMyTime89 4y ago
> 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. Dancey was the VP in charge of the product at WotC at the time. Obviously what he says is relevant because he wasn’t talking strictly in his name but in the name of the company.
- trynewideas 4y ago
  That's great, but Dancey's name isn't on the license, Wizards of the Coast's is. Anyone else at Wizards can contest any statement of intent he makes. Dancey's statement this week also wasn't from his time at Wizards, nor as a representative of the licenser - indeed, he now works at AEG, a competitor with a catalog including OGL v1.0a-licensed works for sale and a vested financial interest in the OGL v1.0a working the way he describes it. The WotC FAQ from that time, again, is relevant IMO. Maybe Dancey wrote it. But it's relevant because Wizards published it. 2022 Ryan Dancey is not.
  - WastingMyTime89 4y ago
    I don’t understand your comment. It doesn’t matter than Dansey’s name isn’t on the license. Writing document exists from the time when he was representing WotC where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual which is the point of him commenting on the whole thing. It’s not about 2022 Dancey. I understand you don’t like the guy but that doesn’t preclude him for saying relevant things.