WotC Hasbro CEO Chris Cox talks about D&D on NPRs Here & Now. Topics include Layoffs and OGL.

[Reynard]

I don't disagree; I just remember that we all said the same thing about the OGL.

The more salient point is that the idea that the 5.1 SRD is in any way safer under the Creative Commons is largely paper thin, and seems to be based more on a belief (that Apple and Microsoft will somehow step in and stare WotC down, apparently) than on any sort of solid legal foundation.

The thinking seems to be that Microsoft and Apple both rely on CC code and therefore would be compelled to defend against people being able to pull their code from CC and then force MS or A to license the code or replace it.

I did a quick search but have not found any confirmation of that, though. I would be interested if anyone has an article that explains the situation.

 

[robertsconley]

I don't disagree; I just remember that we all said the same thing about the OGL.

The more salient point is that the idea that the 5.1 SRD is in any way safer under the Creative Commons is largely paper thin, and seems to be based more on a belief (that Apple and Microsoft will somehow step in and stare WotC down, apparently) than on any sort of solid legal foundation.

EDIT: For more on the potential legal shortcomings with regard to the supposed sense of safety that CC offers, I'll direct people to this post, made by an actual lawyer right here on EN World (with a good follow-up over here).

Unlike the OGL, Creative Commons is backed by a far larger team of legal minds operating around the world. Moreover, the version of CC-BY (4.0) that the D&D 5e SRD was licensed was created after the issues with revocability were brought up. Whereas the OGL remains frozen in the legal world of the early 2000s. Next, the OGL as a license is not well respected among the open content community. However, any threat to Creative Commons has thousands of interested parties, not just big corporations.

 

[Alzrius]

Unlike the OGL, Creative Commons is backed by a far larger team of legal minds operating around the world. Moreover, the version of CC-BY (4.0) that the D&D 5e SRD was licensed was created after the issues with revocability were brought up. Whereas the OGL remains frozen in the legal world of the early 2000s. Next, the OGL as a license is not well respected among the open content community. However, any threat to Creative Commons has thousands of interested parties, not just big corporations.

And how would those parties get involved if WotC - after issuing some BS about the 5.1 SRD no longer being allowable to use under Creative Commons - filed suit against a particular company who published something anyway? How would they take part in a case where they were not named parties?

Because the only things I can see are either A) submitting amicus briefs, and/or B) donating money or legal resources. And given that the threat involved (to potential 5.1 SRD publishers) is one of financial ruin rather than losing the case, only that second one really makes a difference...and I question if there'd be enough pro bono work and/or money flowing in to prop up the person WotC targets all the way to a verdict.

 

[Reynard]

And how would those parties get involved if WotC - after issuing some BS about the 5.1 SRD no longer being allowable to use under Creative Commons - filed suit against a particular company who published something anyway? How would they take part in a case where they were not named parties?

Because the only things I can see are either A) submitting amicus briefs, and/or B) donating money or legal resources. And given that the threat involved (to potential 5.1 SRD publishers) is one of financial ruin rather than losing the case, only that second one really makes a difference...and I question if there'd be enough pro bono work and/or money flowing in to prop up the person WotC targets all the way to a verdict.

It appears to be settled law that CC is perpetual and irrevocable. WotC just can't do what you are concerned about.

In the case of the OGL, the comparison you are drawing, that was not at all clear. That is why folks want "perpectual" put in the OGL so it solves the problem forever.

It just doesn't seem to be something to waste energy on being concerned about.

 

[Alzrius]

It appears to be settled law that CC is perpetual and irrevocable. WotC just can't do what you are concerned about.

Again, that doesn't prevent WotC from either issuing a threat of a lawsuit, or of taking someone to court. "Settled law" doesn't mean "you can't sue someone for this reason." At best, it means quick dismissal via summary judgment, but that's a significant roll of the dice (no pun intended) if that's what you're counting on.

Would WotC likely lose such a court case? Yes, but how helpful is that to you if you're bankrupt by the time you get there? That's the nature of the issue.

In the case of the OGL, the comparison you are drawing, that was not at all clear. That is why folks want "perpectual" put in the OGL so it solves the problem forever.

"Perpetual" is already in the OGL. See it right there, in Section 4? WotC just used a different term in their dubious justification for trying to yank it, which is something they can do for any other license.

It just doesn't seem to be something to waste energy on being concerned about.

Again, I don't disagree. I just remember that we all said that before, and that people seem to be fetishizing how "safe" the Creative Commons is compared to the OGL.

 

[Reynard]

Again, that doesn't prevent WotC from either issuing a threat of a lawsuit, or of taking someone to court. "Settled law" doesn't mean "you can't sue someone for this reason." At best, it means quick dismissal via summary judgment, but that's a significant roll of the dice (no pun intended) if that's what you're counting on.

Would WotC likely lose such a court case? Yes, but how helpful is that to you if you're bankrupt by the time you get there? That's the nature of the issue.

"Perpetual" is already in the OGL. See it right there, in Section 4? WotC just used a different term in their dubious justification for trying to yank it, which is something they can do for any other license.

Again, I don't disagree. I just remember that we said that before, and that people seem to be fetishizing how "safe" the Creative Commons is compared to the OGL.

I don't know what to tell you. Bigger companies than WotC/Hasbro have released stuff under CC. It is a vanishingly small probability that they would try and revoke it for the 5.1 SRD.

WotC owned the OGL and therefore thought they had the power to revoke it (and may yet; it was never tested in court). Therefore, the far bigger concern is getting them to release the 3.5 SRD in CC (because there are companies still relying on it) and making the OGL explicitly irrevocable (which, if I understand the arguments made a year+ ago, is the different than "perpetual").

 

[robertsconley]

And how would those parties get involved if WotC - after issuing some BS about the 5.1 SRD no longer being allowable to use under Creative Commons - filed suit against a particular company who published something anyway? How would they take part in a case where they were not named parties?

Likely will provide lawyers who are experts in defending open content licenses to represent the publisher who is being sued by Wizards.

Because the only things I can see are either A) submitting amicus briefs, and/or B) donating money or legal resources. And given that the threat involved (to potential 5.1 SRD publishers) is one of financial ruin rather than losing the case, only that second one really makes a difference...and I question if there'd be enough pro bono work and/or money flowing in to prop up the person WotC targets all the way to a verdict.

It will follow the same pattern as other lawsuits involving open source or open content.

The most relevant example is Jacobsen v. Katzer. The case involved source code licensed under the Artistic License 1.0, which is considerably more vague than either the OGL or CC-BY license. It involved software developed for the model railroad hobby.

 

[mamba]

No, I don't think they would, mostly because they can't under the scenario I outlined. Again, WotC just has issue a BS declaration that they're "revoking" the 5.1 SRD under the CC for some made-up reason. The ball is now in the court of the publishers using the CC's 5.1 SRD, who are too scared to publish because they can't afford the court case to prove that WotC is full of it.

technically they can just keep on publishing and then the ball is in WotCs court.

If WotC then sued them for some made up reason, others would jump in to defend them because either that reason exists and then can be used by others to also revoke their CC contributions, or a court will make very clear to WotC and others that it does not

That's what we all said about the OGL fifteen months ago. Look how that turned out.

the difference is that with the OGL no one else has a reason to jump in… the actual case was still very much an uphill battle for WotC to win (I don’t think they would have had a chance)

 

[mamba]

I’m pretty sure no legal threats were issued.

saying you will revoke the OGL is a legal threat in itself

 

[Umbran]

That said, I'll go ahead and presume that you're actually having trouble reading what I wrote instead of being disingenuous in your interpretation, so I'll try and make it simpler for you:

Mod Note:
Yeah, making this personal is not going to fly.

Time for you to take a break.