3 ms·

The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e

The only thing that the gaming industry needs to do is to boycott the new edition of D&D, and evolve the games which were originally based on OGL 1.0 content (e.g. "3.5" D&D) on a parallel track, ignoring all the OGL 1.1 things, explicitly foregoing any compatibility with D&D 6th edition (or whatever it will be called), and building up a thriving ecosystem of content which they are definitely capable of doing separately from WotC.

dahdum 4y ago
OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.
- ezfe 4y ago
  They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - Bjartr 4y ago
    > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
  - dahdum 4y ago
    The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
    - Macha 4y ago
      So what some but not all have indicated is that if there is consideration, it goes from a license to a license contract which negates the default revocability of a regular license. The OGL v1.0a and precedents around some open source licenses (Jacobsen vs Katzer, for the Artistic License) indicate that licensing your own work under the same terms counts as consideration. Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years. The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".
ghostly_s 4y ago
This site makes it sound like even that won't be possible, which I find a questionable claim (see my top-level comment).
armoredkitten 4y ago
Part of the contention is that the OGL 1.1 is trying to retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0. Whether or not that is legal is, well, a legal question. But boycotting the new edition is not "the only thing" the industry has to do, if building on the OGL 1.0 is no longer valid. Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke the previous version, the major thing that will have to play out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.
- alexvoda 4y ago
  I say the community should be more proactive. Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked. If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before it get to court.
beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
There seems to be language in OGL 1.1 that is trying to retroactively nullify OGL 1.0. So anyone trying to make something new related to DnD, where they would need to agree to OGL 1.1, would essentially reapply 1.1 to everything they have already made. At least that's how some people have tried to describe the situation to me. I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the ability for creators to continue to make new things that identify themselves explicitly as DnD. WOTC is basically betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to the brand, which will probably backfire on them.

dahdum 4y ago

OGL 1.0 is being replaced, you’ll no longer be able to use the content under those terms.

ezfe 4y ago
They can't just revoke a license (OGL 1.0) unless that license says it can be revoked. Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. Think of the implications it would have if anyone could revoke a license they granted and immediately sue someone for violating the replacement license.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- Bjartr 4y ago
  > Just because they're saying they are doesn't mean they can actually do that. They can act as if they can and sue those that try to ignore it. Then focus on drawing out the legal battle it would take to actually settle the question of if they can. Leveraging the threat of expensive litigation to try to avoid any legally binding outcome enforcing that they can't actually do that.
- dahdum 4y ago
  The license wasn’t irrevocable. It was perpetual, but those mean quite different things according to the IP lawyers I’ve seen commenting on this.
  - Macha 4y ago
    So what some but not all have indicated is that if there is consideration, it goes from a license to a license contract which negates the default revocability of a regular license. The OGL v1.0a and precedents around some open source licenses (Jacobsen vs Katzer, for the Artistic License) indicate that licensing your own work under the same terms counts as consideration. Others have indicated there may be a detrimental reliance (US) or promissory estoppel (EU) case against Wizards to change the license at this point given they have made public statements on the record about the non-revocability of the OGL v1.0a and have allowed the current OGL ecosystem to exist under that assumption for 23 years. The third situation is that neither of the above matter, which is a problem for the software industry as plenty of open source licenses (GPLv2, BSD, MIT, Apache 1.1) have the exact same omission of "irrevocable".

ghostly_s 4y ago

This site makes it sound like even that won't be possible, which I find a questionable claim (see my top-level comment).

armoredkitten 4y ago

Part of the contention is that the OGL 1.1 is trying to retroactively revoke the OGL 1.0. Whether or not that is legal is, well, a legal question. But boycotting the new edition is not "the only thing" the industry has to do, if building on the OGL 1.0 is no longer valid. Provided that WotC does follow through with trying to revoke the previous version, the major thing that will have to play out is to figure out which third-party company is going to end up trying to battle Hasbro in court over whether their maneuver is legal. If anyone, it will probably be Paizo, as one of the largest players building off the OGL. But until that legal question is settled, boycotting the new version (while still building off OGL 1.0) is a dangerous option.

alexvoda 4y ago
I say the community should be more proactive. Hasbro is surely using plenty of open source software under licenses like MIT, BSD, GPL v2 which do not have the magic word "irrevocable". I say some software devs should just declare that if Hasbro retroactively revokes licenses then the licenses for their IT infrastructure also gets revoked. If this goes to court and Hasbro wins, this creates an monstrously dangerous precedent for the software industry. So maybe someone should take their infrastructure hostage before it get to court.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

There seems to be language in OGL 1.1 that is trying to retroactively nullify OGL 1.0. So anyone trying to make something new related to DnD, where they would need to agree to OGL 1.1, would essentially reapply 1.1 to everything they have already made. At least that's how some people have tried to describe the situation to me. I don't see that being remotely enforceable or even a strong argument were something brought to court, but I think WOTC (really Hasbro ) is using the threat of litigation to limit the ability for creators to continue to make new things that identify themselves explicitly as DnD. WOTC is basically betting that the rpg market is really a DnD market, captive to the brand, which will probably backfire on them.