Mastodawn

mcc Jan 12, 2023

Paizo (publishers of Pathfinder) react to rumors of Wizards of the Coast moving from the existing Open Game License to a new, predatory license and attempting to somehow retroactively revoke the old license: https://paizo.com/community/blog

The punchline: Paizo previously used the OGL to release their original content because it was there; now they feel it is no longer trustworthy so they're making their own license.

The name: The Open RPG Creative License (ORC).

mcc Jan 13, 2023

Sorry, I think I may have been unclear here— the ORCs are the good guys

mcc Jan 13, 2023

If you haven't been following this: Around 2000 D&D 3e was released using OGL 1.0a, which Wizards created. After 23 years gobs of commercial work has been released depending on this license. About a week ago Wizards started privately sending creators a "OGL 1.1" with alarming terms. Originally it had a go-live date of *TODAY*. The new license immediately leaked, and there was uproar.

Today Wizards announced a livestream to discuss the controversy. Then cancelled it.

https://gizmodo.com/dungeons-dragons-ogl-announcement-wizards-of-the-coast-1849981365

Wizards of the Coast Cancels OGL Announcement After Online Ire

The new Dungeons & Dragons Open Game License was expected on Thursday afternoon, but a fan campaign against changes has caused the company to hesitate.

Gizmodo

mcc Jan 20, 2023

Follow-up: So one week after canceling the launch of "OGL 1.1" aka "OGL 2.0", Wizards has launched "OGL 1.2". They brag they've addressed community concerns in various ways, but I don't think they have. For example they brag the new license contains the word "irrevocable" (although they define it to mean something special in the document so maybe it's still revocable). But the outrage was that Hasbro was trying to revoke the *old* OGL, 1.0a. And they're still doing that:

https://www.polygon.com/23562874/dnd-dungeons-dragons-ogl-1-2-release-download-feedback-survey

D&D will move to Creative Commons license, requests feedback on new OGL

A new draft of the Dungeons & Dragons Open Gaming License (OGL) places the core rules of the seminal tabletop RPG in the Creative Commons. “We’re giving the core D&D mechanics to the community,” said the executive producer. Feedback is due by Feb. 3.

Polygon

APT Ate My Homework Jan 20, 2023

@mcc didn't they say that the old license would be retained by anything already under that license? I interpreted it as meaning they were only revoking its availability for new content

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@http_error_418 The paste is from the document itself. It seems to quite clearly say that *your* content published before X date can continue to be published but *your* new content may not use 1.0a after the effective date. But that is not congruent with the understood notion of "a license" and clearly not congruent with how people have made use of the 1.0a license for two decades.

APT Ate My Homework Jan 20, 2023

@mcc Welp that's my belief that I understood licensing gone in the bin then 😅

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@http_error_418 I mean maybe I'm misreading it ?!?? That would be nice??

APT Ate My Homework Jan 20, 2023

@mcc I mean if the license is -not- irrevocable, then how else might it be revoked? It just seems to me that if a license needs to contain the word in order to be irrevocable, then it follows that a license not containing that must, even if printed in a book that I own, be something that can be revoked, and they aren't going to do that by posting everyone errata pages with the license crossed out

APT Ate My Homework Jan 20, 2023

@mcc and if they can revoke it that way then why would it not also be possible to say "the license is no longer valid for new content but still valid for anything preexisting"

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@http_error_418 It's possible Hasbro is just wrong about the law, or some executive told the lawyers "do this" and the lawyers are doing that despite knowing it's not legally sound. A lawyer will typically never say "no". They'll respond more like "I would advise against that, that would be very difficult to defend in court" but if the client decides it's still what they want the client will get it.

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418

I think I might be able to help here... revoking a license and offering a license are two different things in the world of licensing law.

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418

Some licenses are revokable, that is they can no longer be used to justify old content, but they usually have to be unilateral, ie you don't offer anything and they don't keep anything to use it instead of bilateral.

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418
This as written isn't revoking a license in lawyer speak, it is withdrawing the offer of a license for new material.

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@Vrimj @http_error_418
By "new material", you mean third-party material not written at the time of the revocation, or first-party material published after "effective date"?

Say someone comes into possession of a book printed before effective date, but which they obtained after— I'm *assuming* the SRD, OGL 1.0a etc were available in printed form??— would you actually say Wizards can say "I know you have a piece of paper saying you have a license, but it doesn't count anymore, bc we said so"?

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418

So anything already published under 1.0a would still be licensed after the effective date, the license has already been accepted by publishing in compliance.

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418
"would you actually say Wizards can say "I know you have a piece of paper saying you have a license, but it doesn't count anymore, bc we said so"?"

This would be what is usually meant by revoking, lots of reasons for them not to do it and I am surprised they considered it!

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@Vrimj @http_error_418 OK. What's most alarming to me here is I'm looking over various established open source software licenses and struggling to locate what specific text prevents this particular nightmare from occurring to someone who's dependent on OSS licensed code. I suspect it's present because OSI and other lawyers looked over all the common licenses, but MIT, GPL2, ISC licenses don't have the specific word "irrevocable" in them

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418

Ok this one I can kind of answer (general perspective not legal advice)

Most of the licenses you are looking at are bilateral, they require things in order to accept and have duties attached.

You can't (usually) unilaterally revoke bilateral contracts because they are agreements not gifts.

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@Vrimj @http_error_418 OK, you mentioned that before.

Maybe this question is too big, but generally what kind of test would we use to determine if something like the ISC license, or the OGL 1.0a, is bilateral?

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418
If you are saying you can revoke a license you also saying "it was a gift, we didn't get anything in return" so this was kind of the most offensive thing Wizards did in my reading of the situation.

ISC is basically a this is a gift license because it doesn't have obligations that attach.

mcc Jan 20, 2023

@Vrimj @http_error_418 The ISC thing sounds really weird, I feel like people would not use ISC for the purposes they use it for if there was any hint of an idea it could be at any point to any degree withdrawn for existing or future users. Supposedly the point of the ISC is that it removes "superfluous" text from the MIT license, but the MIT license includes an explicit right to sublicense, which I'm assuming nukes revocation attempts

@Vrimj @http_error_418 A for the OGL, it seems to me people *did* give something, or accept something, to Wizards for the license; some of them *literally* purchased printed materials from Wizards (not at a high cost, but for more than one dollar), the OGL licensor accepts various limitations that (per the EFF) they *would* have had under bare fair use in a world without the OGL. But I imagine that's part of what would be debated at court.

Vrimj Jan 20, 2023

@mcc @http_error_418

I agree people accepted limitations and expanded on a core product line, but I am not an IP person, most of the IP people who play D&D agree with this read though.