Source? That was not my understanding of the OGL. It guaranteed a perpetual license to users, and there is no legal precedence for such a revocation. That didn’t stop them from trying to bully everybody into submission. What reason is there to think any other license would make a difference? It’s not about the chances of them winning, it’s about the legal trouble and bills they can cause. I’m not sure why anybody would trust hasbro / wotc after that fuckup, regardless of their promises.
The text of OGL 1.0a does not say that its irrevocable, and that was the big problem. It does say perpetual, but not irrevocable, and that was where the supposed crux of the argument came in. That said, during the OGL debacle, i saw it pointed out that the legal licensing definition of “irrevocable” was decided in court years after the ogl was written. I know the original writers of it had come out and said that they had intended it to be irrevocable, though
Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” it also included language around authorized versions of the license and “according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL”.
basically their lawyers combed through and thought they found a way around it. ORC was cleaned and and to make it clear that is not possible has this:
b. Modifications. This ORC License may not be amended, superseded, modified, updated, repealed, revoked, or deauthorized. Neither You nor Licensor may modify the terms of this ORC License; however, You may enter into a separate agreement of Your own making provided such agreement does not seek to modify the terms hereof. This ORC License does not, and shall not be interpreted to reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this ORC License.
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license is so much more permissive and liberal than the ORC license. More people benefit from more rights because of it being in CC-BY 4.0 instead of the ORC.
well yeah as its on the most permissive ends of the creative commons licenses and if they were to use it they likely would user closer to the other end of the spectrum. these are companies though that are selling products but just want to allow folks to make their own derivations based around the ruleset without worrying about it and allowing folks to use the ruleset without buying it but not allow people to sell copies of their specific work.
put everything under the orc license and we can talk.
Until the next time they try to revoke the license, you mean?
@wahming @HubertManne There’s no revoking a Creative Commons.
There’s no revoking the OGL either. That didn’t stop them from trying.
the writing of the ogl was a little loose with that which allowed them to try. orc was made to fix that.
Source? That was not my understanding of the OGL. It guaranteed a perpetual license to users, and there is no legal precedence for such a revocation. That didn’t stop them from trying to bully everybody into submission. What reason is there to think any other license would make a difference? It’s not about the chances of them winning, it’s about the legal trouble and bills they can cause. I’m not sure why anybody would trust hasbro / wotc after that fuckup, regardless of their promises.
The text of OGL 1.0a does not say that its irrevocable, and that was the big problem. It does say perpetual, but not irrevocable, and that was where the supposed crux of the argument came in. That said, during the OGL debacle, i saw it pointed out that the legal licensing definition of “irrevocable” was decided in court years after the ogl was written. I know the original writers of it had come out and said that they had intended it to be irrevocable, though
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Game_License
Linda Codega, for Io9 in January 2023, reported on the details from a leaked full copy of the OGL 1.1 including updated terms such as no longer authorizing use of the OGL1.0. Codega explained that while the original OGL granted a “perpetual, worldwide, non-exclusive license” it also included language around authorized versions of the license and “according to attorneys consulted for this article, the new language may indicate that Wizards of the Coast is rendering any future use of the original OGL void, and asserting that if anyone wants to continue to use Open Game Content of any kind, they will need to abide by the terms of the updated OGL, which is a far more restrictive agreement than the original OGL”.
basically their lawyers combed through and thought they found a way around it. ORC was cleaned and and to make it clear that is not possible has this:
b. Modifications. This ORC License may not be amended, superseded, modified, updated, repealed, revoked, or deauthorized. Neither You nor Licensor may modify the terms of this ORC License; however, You may enter into a separate agreement of Your own making provided such agreement does not seek to modify the terms hereof. This ORC License does not, and shall not be interpreted to reduce, limit, restrict, or impose conditions on any use of the Licensed Material that could lawfully be made without permission under this ORC License.
Big team of lawyers beats moral high ground every time. The law is pay to win.
deleted by creator
I don’t see how this https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/us/legalcode.en has less intelligible language than this https://paizo.com/orclicense
deleted by creator
They don’t control the ORC. They can’t even LARP revoking it, unlike the OGL.
Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 license is so much more permissive and liberal than the ORC license. More people benefit from more rights because of it being in CC-BY 4.0 instead of the ORC.
well yeah as its on the most permissive ends of the creative commons licenses and if they were to use it they likely would user closer to the other end of the spectrum. these are companies though that are selling products but just want to allow folks to make their own derivations based around the ruleset without worrying about it and allowing folks to use the ruleset without buying it but not allow people to sell copies of their specific work.