WotC's STRONGEST Legal Argument to REVOKE the OGL 1.0a - Expert IP Lawyer Explains, DnD, D&D

This is especially important given the Open Game License (OGL) controversy surrounding Dungeons & Dragons (DnD, D&D) and Wizards of the Coast (WotC).

#dnd #wotc #dnd5e

[ItsDan]

It's perpetual but not irrevocable. And if it's irrevocable then we're trying to cancel it. And if it's uncancellable then we're trying to terminate it. And if it's interminable we're trying to nullify it. And if it's unnullifiable then we're trying to repeal it. And if it's unrepealable then we're trying to void it. And if it's unvoidable we're trying to rescind it.

[squidbeard]

It seems being able to revoke something because it doesn't it's irrevocable would undermine the concept of contract and licenses

[whyuhatan]

Unfortunately for Wizards claiming that they can revoke the ogl.
They've gone on the record on their own website no less right up until November of 2022 stating the exact opposite. That they could not and would not revoke 1.0a and so the community and creators wouldn't have to worry about it.
All Paizos lawyers need to do is show a copy of that thanks to the internet archive and Wizards is done

[misomiso]

Really would like Bob Tarantino to react to the 'OPening Arguments' podcast where they talk about how WotC CAN revoke it.

His insight would be very helpful.

[gaberielpendragon]

It seems the best bet for revoking the OGL 1.0a is removing the SRD. At which point the OGL isn't pointing to anything, and it no longer matters if it's revokable or not.
I feel like the best bet to get them to back down on this, other than everything we are already doing, is getting really loud about boycotting the DnD movie to make Paramount start breathing down Hasbro's neck.

[PrimalFears]

Commenting on ogl 1.2 they just released
“Deauthorizing” OGL 1.0a is dubious at best I don’t think they have enough of a legal argument to back revoking the 1.0a.

This CC “license” is all content that wasn’t even protected in the first place. It’s all stuff they really couldn’t copyright anyways like game mechanics.

They also include sections prohibiting jury trials and prohibiting the use of injunctions. This just tells me they want to steal your ideas and the only thing you can do is sue for monetary damages all while WOTC is profiting from your ideas.

The section about WOTC defining what is and isn’t hateful speech seems super vague on purpose so they can justify removing content they don’t like.

1.2 while better then 1.1 leaves alot to be desired mainly it doesn’t state anywhere they can’t release 1.3 next month and add back all the money grubbing crap they took out if 1.1. If the community allows them to “revoke/deauthorize” 1.0a with out a fight it’s just a slippery slope from there.

I honestly think the correct decision is anyone currently using WOTC DND switch to pathfinder. I don’t think WOTC understand it’s the community that drives this product not the distributor and it always has been.

[ArchaeanDragon]

Revocable statements are sometimes in the Termination section, which 1.0a does have, but they are extremely limited and not useful for wholesale revocation of the entire license, as WotC is trying to do.

Problem is, "de-authorizing" is generally not a thing without some language explaining the terms or conditions under which such a "de-authorization" is to occur. Without that, I'd say that something is either "Authorized", now and forevermore, or it never was. ie, if it was ever "authorized", then it shall always be so.

[hammerhiem]

I agree with Bob, and I would add that the arguement WotC have to play with are infintely easier to attack than Piazo's.

Both from a logical legal point of view and from the point of view of What courts are looking for (Original intent, president etc)

[Lexmanity]

In case the OGL license legally turns out to be revocable, third-party creators should choose to sue WOtc for loss of earnings due to intentionally nonwritten "Revocable terms" under the existing 1.0a OGL. It's in the best interest of the company to compromise and maintain the current status quo. (Don't mess with us the nerds, we can be worst Lawful Evil than you executives turned out to be WOtc !)

[jonahgull]

I keep seeing persuasive arguments form lawyers that WoTC likely doesn’t even have the right to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a. My question is - why are they allowed to continue to publicly make a false claim? Especially when that false claim is causing present and future financial damages to competitors - as well as negatively affecting consumers? Shouldn’t WoTC be facing injunctions, law suits, and reports to regulating agencies?

[Jamesdalf]

"It doesn't say a dog CAN'T play basketball"

[adamantoutcast]

My fear is the same as how people in high places seem to always buy off judges and such that gives the greedy dragon further unfair unjustified power over the entire ordeal. No one should be above the law or above what is clearly right, but this is a messed up world we all live in... Never stop fighting it though, we must stand strong no matter what. Hold the line my fellow gamer brethren, don't concede on anything even when they fight unfair. ESPECIALLY, when they fight unfair!

[beilkster]

Oh, so its a CLOSED GAME LICENSE, got it.

[davidkreutzkamp]

So does the community lawyer up via Piazo to get Hasbro to backdown? Honestly tired of the back and forth. If the community and Pazio are so sure then put Hasbro to the test.