2 ms·

What I don't understand about this is how they're able to retroactively change the licence terms. As I understand it (and I'm not an expert, hence the question

What I don't understand about this is how they're able to retroactively change the licence terms. As I understand it (and I'm not an expert, hence the question), Pathfinder is based on D&D as released under the OGL, and has been a successful commercial product for years. How is it legal for WotC to change the terms of the OGL licence and invalidate Pathfinder's ability to use the D&D content retroactively? Surely Pathfinder can point to the original OGL release and say "all our content is based on this release which you released under an open licence". Secondary question: does this apply to OSS as well? Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee?

ryukafalz 4y ago
The OGL 1.0(a) includes this text: > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Wizards is claiming (I think erroneously, as it contradicts past published statements to the contrary regarding its intent) that this gives them the right to declare previous versions of the OGL as no longer "authorized" and thus invalid. I suspect this won't hold up in court should it come to that but testing it in court would be the only way to find out. Most FOSS licenses do not include a clause like this.
racingmars 4y ago
> What I don't understand about this is how they're able to retroactively change the licence terms. I think the concern is around provision 9 of the OGL: "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." IANAL so I have no idea what all the implications of this actually are, or how a court might understand it. But at face value, the "any authorized version of this License" makes people think WotC would no longer authorize the 1.0 license and only authorize the 1.1 license, so further copying and distribution of material originally distributed under v1.0 would only be possible under the v1.1 license if it becomes the only "authorized" license. Does contract law allow for such a thing? I don't know. > Secondary question: does this apply to OSS as well? Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee? No, because free software licenses don't tend to have that confusing "Updating the License" or any way to retroactively change the conditions that the OGL has. OSS projects could always re-license (at least the code that the project has copyright ownership of) going forward, but that wouldn't affect copies you already got under the previous terms.
- kneebonian 4y ago
  I'd also recommend reading Paizo's response on thier blog it was enlightening to say the least.
Kerrick 4y ago
This article from a lawyer who also plays D&D explained things in a way I better understood: 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... The key is that the old OGL was perpetual but not irrevocable.
- knaik94 4y ago
  It's not that clear cut. There is no lanuage about when a license can be revoked. That's not how the contracts of these types work. You can only argue that new people will not be able to use the old license. It's similar to the situation with an MIT license. Companies have come out and said they would take WotC over this if necessary.
blep_ 4y ago
> Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee? It's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Relicensing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#... The short version is that if you hold the copyright, you can relicense new versions as you see fit, but can't change the license on already released versions. If the copyright is held by individual contributors, then you'd need unanimous consent from all of them, because the company is effectively licensing it from them in approximately the same way a user would. PostgreSQL, specifically, is in the latter category, so it's not really a concern: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Do_I_need_to_sign_a_copyright_assignment.3F https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Do_I_need_to_...

ryukafalz 4y ago

The OGL 1.0(a) includes this text: > 9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License. Wizards is claiming (I think erroneously, as it contradicts past published statements to the contrary regarding its intent) that this gives them the right to declare previous versions of the OGL as no longer "authorized" and thus invalid. I suspect this won't hold up in court should it come to that but testing it in court would be the only way to find out. Most FOSS licenses do not include a clause like this.

racingmars 4y ago

> What I don't understand about this is how they're able to retroactively change the licence terms. I think the concern is around provision 9 of the OGL: "9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." IANAL so I have no idea what all the implications of this actually are, or how a court might understand it. But at face value, the "any authorized version of this License" makes people think WotC would no longer authorize the 1.0 license and only authorize the 1.1 license, so further copying and distribution of material originally distributed under v1.0 would only be possible under the v1.1 license if it becomes the only "authorized" license. Does contract law allow for such a thing? I don't know. > Secondary question: does this apply to OSS as well? Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee? No, because free software licenses don't tend to have that confusing "Updating the License" or any way to retroactively change the conditions that the OGL has. OSS projects could always re-license (at least the code that the project has copyright ownership of) going forward, but that wouldn't affect copies you already got under the previous terms.

kneebonian 4y ago
I'd also recommend reading Paizo's response on thier blog it was enlightening to say the least.

Kerrick 4y ago

This article from a lawyer who also plays D&D explained things in a way I better understood: 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... The key is that the old OGL was perpetual but not irrevocable.

knaik94 4y ago
It's not that clear cut. There is no lanuage about when a license can be revoked. That's not how the contracts of these types work. You can only argue that new people will not be able to use the old license. It's similar to the situation with an MIT license. Companies have come out and said they would take WotC over this if necessary.

blep_ 4y ago

> Can (e.g) Postgresql wait until the whole world is relying on their software, and then pull a licence change that makes it non-free/libre and requiring a paid licence fee? It's happened before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#Relicensing_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contributor_License_Agreement#... The short version is that if you hold the copyright, you can relicense new versions as you see fit, but can't change the license on already released versions. If the copyright is held by individual contributors, then you'd need unanimous consent from all of them, because the company is effectively licensing it from them in approximately the same way a user would. PostgreSQL, specifically, is in the latter category, so it's not really a concern: https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Do_I_need_to_sign_a_copyright_assignment.3F https://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Developer_FAQ#Do_I_need_to_...