6 ms·

Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that

Maybe I'm missing something here but this summary feels pretty FUD-y. WotC has the right to re-license their own content, and we are free to disagree with that decision, but surely they have no legal means to force other creators to switch their own content to the new license version simply because they are using a license text that was drafted by WoTC? Plenty of OSS projects have stuck with GPLv2 in similar circumstances. And I'm less clear on this point, but are they even able to change the license terms under which third-parties have used WotC content that was already published under the old license? Couldn't these third parties continue using the existing content so long as they forgo new additions which are published under the more restrictive license? Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content?

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago
It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up. In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.
- Tyr42 4y ago
  Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.
  - SSLy 4y ago
    Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
    - Macha 4y ago
      https://www.livingdice.com/1595/wotc-stops-pdf-sales-through-paizocom-and-rpgnowcom/ https://www.livingdice.com/1595/wotc-stops-pdf-sales-through...
      - SSLy 4y ago
        Oh, thanks. Luckily the PDF's in question have been liberated since..
- sleepybrett 4y ago
  But the people who make money using the current ogl provide lots of value to d&d consumers that wotc simply isn't filling. At the end of the day it's a foot gun.
johnday 4y ago
> Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content? It depends entirely on your definition of "can". If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.
- flockonus 4y ago
  Had this question too, can you clarify, so say there is an existing biz that uses some of DnD content like perks or classes; their software is said at v1.0 now, but then they want to include another class from existing DnD 3.5, or some perk, which would bump their release. Are they now obligated to signup for this new license, or can they just reference the old system version and license, much like a software would??
  - johnday 4y ago
    Worse - the seeming intent of WotC is to effectively cancel the previous version, which mean anything that's already written including v1.0 could no longer be legally distributed or sold.
- Terr_ 4y ago
  > If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0], even if WoTC hasn't yet sued any of them for continuing to operate under the old license it's trying to revoke under questionable circumstances? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief
  - mijoharas 4y ago
    At least one company seems to have asked their lawyers to send a letter[0] to WoTC as discussed in this comment[1] on another HN thread here[2]. The wording giving them 10 days to respond to the questions seems to sound like it's heading towards something like what you suggested? [0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRMOOlka/edit https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687
brigade 4y ago
A nuance: they might not be able to revoke existing OGL 1.0 licenses for anyone that has already used it to publish derivates, but they can likely cancel the offer, even for existing OGL 1.0 content, for anyone that hasn't yet relied on the OGL to ship WotC IP. Which would in turn limit all future derivates to existing OGL 1.0 license holders, which would practically achieve Hasbro's rumored goals.
freshhawk 4y ago
WotC owns or controls all the places those creators sell their stuff. So they definitely have the economic means to force creators to abandon the old license. They will also probbaly just threaten people with their odd legal interpretation of their actual legal means as well, and plenty of people will comply.

beezlebroxxxxxx 4y ago

It's likely that Hasbro and WOTC are betting on the threat of litigation being a meaningful deterrent from actually seeing whether their attempts to retroactively nullify 1.0 holds up. In general, I agree. I think we're seeing a "hobby" community freak out when the owners of the brand turn away from the "ideals" of the hobby in question. This mainly effects people who are making money using the DnD brand. Something that Hasbro owns. Whether they also own the past of that brand, and can alter its licensing, seems like the real ambiguity that Hasbro are hiding behind the curtain.

Tyr42 4y ago
Wizards also pulled the ability for people to download pdfs they already paid for with zero notice before, when they revoked a resellers license. Pretty dick move, and they think they can try and pull that shit again.
- SSLy 4y ago
  Whoa, do you have more sources about this event?
  - Macha 4y ago
    https://www.livingdice.com/1595/wotc-stops-pdf-sales-through-paizocom-and-rpgnowcom/ https://www.livingdice.com/1595/wotc-stops-pdf-sales-through...
    - SSLy 4y ago
      Oh, thanks. Luckily the PDF's in question have been liberated since..
sleepybrett 4y ago
But the people who make money using the current ogl provide lots of value to d&d consumers that wotc simply isn't filling. At the end of the day it's a foot gun.

johnday 4y ago

> Or can they really revoke that licensing on previously published content? It depends entirely on your definition of "can". If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. If you mean, is this action supported by WotC's own historic interpretation of their own license, then no. If you mean, can they force the hand of smaller creators by threat of litigation, then certainly they can.

flockonus 4y ago
Had this question too, can you clarify, so say there is an existing biz that uses some of DnD content like perks or classes; their software is said at v1.0 now, but then they want to include another class from existing DnD 3.5, or some perk, which would bump their release. Are they now obligated to signup for this new license, or can they just reference the old system version and license, much like a software would??
- johnday 4y ago
  Worse - the seeming intent of WotC is to effectively cancel the previous version, which mean anything that's already written including v1.0 could no longer be legally distributed or sold.
Terr_ 4y ago
> If you mean, is this action supported by law, then no. IANAL, but isn't this a situation where smaller companies could band together and sue WoTC for Declaratory Relief [0], even if WoTC hasn't yet sued any of them for continuing to operate under the old license it's trying to revoke under questionable circumstances? [0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/declaratory_relief
- mijoharas 4y ago
  At least one company seems to have asked their lawyers to send a letter[0] to WoTC as discussed in this comment[1] on another HN thread here[2]. The wording giving them 10 days to respond to the questions seems to sound like it's heading towards something like what you suggested? [0] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRMOOlka/edit https://drive.google.com/file/d/1UgfQ8rydZ7D5LQXRJ6XDKa-_MRM... [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34272424 [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34271687

brigade 4y ago

A nuance: they might not be able to revoke existing OGL 1.0 licenses for anyone that has already used it to publish derivates, but they can likely cancel the offer, even for existing OGL 1.0 content, for anyone that hasn't yet relied on the OGL to ship WotC IP. Which would in turn limit all future derivates to existing OGL 1.0 license holders, which would practically achieve Hasbro's rumored goals.

freshhawk 4y ago

WotC owns or controls all the places those creators sell their stuff. So they definitely have the economic means to force creators to abandon the old license. They will also probbaly just threaten people with their odd legal interpretation of their actual legal means as well, and plenty of people will comply.