4 ms·

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 th

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.
    - hutzlibu 4y ago
      "where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual" This is still not relevant here, it is about irrevocible. But apparently he also said that and it was in the official FAQ. If official FAQs are meaningless, then this just gives room for open fraud.
throw0101c 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-as-individual may not matter, but Dancey-as-officer-of-company may. At the time he was presumably acting on behalf of WotC and stating what WotC's intent was. So when he says that the intent at the time of issuance was that it could never be revoked, wouldn't there have to be evidence put forward to contradict it? Either internal documents or from someone else involved in the OGL giving a contrasting opinion?
- Macha 4y ago
  Especially when the inverse is true and there are statements on record from the time by Dancey-as-officer-of-company

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.
  - hutzlibu 4y ago
    "where he says that the licence is intended as perpetual" This is still not relevant here, it is about irrevocible. But apparently he also said that and it was in the official FAQ. If official FAQs are meaningless, then this just gives room for open fraud.

throw0101c 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-as-individual may not matter, but Dancey-as-officer-of-company may. At the time he was presumably acting on behalf of WotC and stating what WotC's intent was. So when he says that the intent at the time of issuance was that it could never be revoked, wouldn't there have to be evidence put forward to contradict it? Either internal documents or from someone else involved in the OGL giving a contrasting opinion?

Macha 4y ago
Especially when the inverse is true and there are statements on record from the time by Dancey-as-officer-of-company