Except that they're leaving the door open to do this entire rodeo again. They included the term "irrevocable" and then defined it to be entirely backwards facing. So they can terminate 1.2/2.0 at any time. Again. And force us all to do this whole dance. Again. Which means nothing they walked back, is ACTUALLY off the table, they're just saving it for later.
Where are you getting that from. Please quote from the OGL 1.2 and how you go that interpretation?
2.LICENSE.In consideration for your compliance with this license, you may copy, use, modify and distribute Our Licensed Content around the world as part of Your Licensed Works. This license is perpetual (meaning that it has no set end date), non-exclusive (meaning that we may offer others a license to Our Licensed Content orOur Unlicensed Content under any conditions we choose), and irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license). It also cannot be modified except for the attribution provisions of Section 5 and Section 9(a) regarding notices.
Meaning that, though they can't pull the SRD out of the license, they can terminate it at any time. Poof. Gone. There is no license, we didn't revoke anything! Which is literally the position we're in now. Now we need to include the term interminable.
Where do you get they can terminate at any time? Those are legal terms. ... "Irrevocable" means it can't be removed. It is one of the arguments against 1.0a. Courts have already rules that perpetual doesn't mean "can't be ended". Only "Irrevocable" means that. And it can only be modified in very specific ways from the Termination and Modifcation sections. How are you getting they can Terminate at will? Honestly, I don't get that interpretation except in the absolutely most non comprehensible reading. The termination section is on a case by case basis, and not the whole thing, barring some ruling or law that makes the enforcement of the OGL impossible.
The full OGL makes it clear that the SRD is now covered by CCL and the only thing this document does is set down the use of WotC IP and what is allowable.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't." You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
Now, maintaining the topic of the thread, shall we speculate what WotC Intends by, very deliberately, creating a loophole in this way?
All this work to understand wtf is going on to play a game of make believe, for goodness sake.
So much work today with WOTC as I try to figure out what the actual hell is going on, as the first attempt at changing the OGL was dastardly, some real evil corporate power play. My opinion anyway.
Meanwhile, the competition basically Paladin's the crap out of the entire thing by saying "Nah, here is the right thing to do. Nobody asked us to do it. All are welcome to do it with us and we've got the tab covered."
100% all of this - shortened down the parts that stood out to me the most because YEAH, it really shouldn't be that hard! Or complicated!
We all literally show up here to play a fantasy game of imagination that largely hinges on very classic, black and white concepts of Good vs. Evil.
The Paladin swoops in and saves the Villagers from being slaughtered by the Dread Lord.
Why the hell is Wizards pulling all this, and why are they even acting like they think they have the right to keep messing with the OGL at all rather than acting like the contrite, ashamed little schoolboys they should be running home with their tail between their legs? They're still showing up acting like they should get to change the OGL at all, when I have ZERO idea why anyone would let them at this point?
Like why would we hand the evil universe ending sword back over to the Dread Lord? Can someone explain that to me?
I mean, I -can- grab an axe and chop my neighbors up - it doesn't mean that I should.
Just because someone, or a corporation, CAN do something, doesn't mean that they should do it. They could lay off half their staff overnight and start trying to sell push pops instead of dungeons and dragons books too - it doesn't make it the wisest choice though.
There are a lot of things that people CAN do. That doesn't mean they should do them. Just because Wizards can 'legally' try and argue that they have the right to de-authorize a past version of the OGL doesn't mean that they should, especially when they've already proven to us that they're only doing it for nefarious purposes. Maybe especially now that we know they're only doing it for nefarious purposes, actually?
Like I'm not going to trust a dude that just tried to murder me. I'm not going to trust Wizards with a legal document that they just got proven they're using to try and screw the community over with, either. I'm not an idiot.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't." You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
How are they changing the legal definition of Irrevocable?
This license is Perpetual, Exclusive, and Irrevocable. I don't see any clauses beyond the "Modification" section which clarifies exactly how and when it can be modified or terminated on a case by case basis. The only "Nuke it from orbit" section is the "If it becomes unenforceable." Which is the legalize of "We lost in court, so the document can't be used, and we have to rewirte the whole damn thing, so you can't use this language anymore." It doesn't mean terminate at any time. That doesn't stand up to logic, in the context of the document as a whole.
It does need to improve the verbage in 6f and include some kind of arbitration, but that doesn't mean they can terminate it at any time. How did you get that interpretation? Please be specific with the language in the OGL and not your personal interpretation of it.
All this work to understand wtf is going on to play a game of make believe, for goodness sake.
So much work today with WOTC as I try to figure out what the actual hell is going on, as the first attempt at changing the OGL was dastardly, some real evil corporate power play. My opinion anyway.
Meanwhile, the competition basically Paladin's the crap out of the entire thing by saying "Nah, here is the right thing to do. Nobody asked us to do it. All are welcome to do it with us and we've got the tab covered."
100% all of this - shortened down the parts that stood out to me the most because YEAH, it really shouldn't be that hard! Or complicated!
We all literally show up here to play a fantasy game of imagination that largely hinges on very classic, black and white concepts of Good vs. Evil.
The Paladin swoops in and saves the Villagers from being slaughtered by the Dread Lord.
Why the hell is Wizards pulling all this, and why are they even acting like they think they have the right to keep messing with the OGL at all rather than acting like the contrite, ashamed little schoolboys they should be running home with their tail between their legs? They're still showing up acting like they should get to change the OGL at all, when I have ZERO idea why anyone would let them at this point?
Like why would we hand the evil universe ending sword back over to the Dread Lord? Can someone explain that to me?
Hate to tell you this, but they own the license and the IP. So yes. they get to decide how their IP is used. This OGL seperates the SRD (Rules) from the OGL (IP). So you can use the rules however you want, but not their IP.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't." You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
This license is... irrevocable (meaning that contentlicensedunder this licensecan never be withdrawn from the license).
How are they changing the legal definition of Irrevocable?
This license is Perpetual, Exclusive, and Irrevocable.
I mean, I can't do more for you than BOLDing the specific wording. It literally says what it says. I don't know how to answer that question. Definitions and terms defined within the 4 walls of the contract supersede legal definitions. They defined it, and they didn't define it as "this license can never be withdrawn or revoked." Which is the LEGAL definition that most people would use. The content being licensed is the SRD. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from? Wizards is licensing us to use their content, not our content, in this case, the SRD.
So SRD content can not be removed from this license once added to the license.
That doesn't stop them from just terminating the license though. It doesn't say they can't, at any rate.
I'm not having trouble discerning Wizards motives.
They want the right to terminate anyone's license with 30 days notice and sue if you don't IMMEDIATELY stop publishing and recall your unsold stock, without recourse, so that they can kill anyone who gets too big or otherwise threatens their pocketbook. They want other rights, like, total immunity from lawsuits in any form from "partners." I'm sure there's a Christmas wish-list somewhere.
And they want the right to prevent VTTs from pretending to be adobe reader (a platform, content agnostic) when people use "unofficial" sources that wizards can't be bothered to shut down themselves, because the VTTs are the actual target. Wizards either wants to cripple them, or get them under their thumb, and the new OGL is what gets them there.
Oh, and they want to release digital only products of some kind, hide it behind a subscription model instead of a publishers model and turn DND into the next marvel, which nobody will accept unless they can kill 5e DEAD, DEAD, DEAD, and since 5.5 is 5e compatible, that won't work so long as 1.0a exists so that has to die too, otherwise people will just keep publishing stuff compatible with SRD 5.1 and people will keep buying/using/playing that. Can't have DNDNext without killing DNDLast. They will be DNDOne.
And finally, they want to put the 3rd party community "In their place." and make sure everybody knows that they aren't authors, they are parasites. WotC is top dog, you are unpaid, freelance, hired help. You work at their pleasure. You might own the rights to YOUR WORK, but they have the final say on anything you write. "Partners?" "Collegues?" "Competitors?"
Did I miss something? Do I win a prize?
I mean, I wish I could reach through the screen and put a lil' gold star on your shirt for what a good job you did, but even if we had the technology to do so Wizards would have made it either not allowed on their site or cost money :< so you'll have to settle with your imagination for me. I was a teacher for a hot minute though so it's got the Real Gold Star Vibes.
I'm not even sure they're confident D&D One will be the 'bees knees' so much as they just want to kill off any other version of it and herd everyone into it because they think that it's the only version of the game they can hyper monetize like they want to, with all those salacious microtransactions waiting for them. I'm sure they're willing to lose half their business now if they think it'll get them tapped into that market - all the studies showing how microtransactions rake in effortless billions has all the CEO's rushing to figure out how to make that happen for them, no matter what their company sells.
This license is... irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license).
Ah I see where you are trying to go with it. The paretthesis clause, by your own interpretation only applies to the content not the liscense as a whole. However, once it is liscensed, it can't be withdrawn. Any of it. Not one whit of the content of the license can be withdrawn. Yes the entire license can be nuked, under the termination clause, but that's not an "At any time" because the Termination Clause exists. It explains the explicate times that Termination can happen. Because their is a termination clause, WotC must abide by that Termination Clause of the license and can't revoke it at "Any time they want".
Hate to tell you this, but that's not an actual response.
Just because you -can- doesn't mean you -should-. Are you listening?
Even if you want to argue they have the legal right - which to me is neither here nor there, it is a non-issue, but it's the only issue you seem to be aware of - it is not something that they morally should do.
We're talking about something beyond man's law, because man's law is a slow, flawed thing that once said it was legally okay to beat your wife so long as the branch wasn't thicker than your thumb. So resting on legality doesn't really do it for me.
Regardless of whether or not they can - why SHOULD they? Why SHOULD they be changing the OGL right now, and why SHOULD we trust them after they already showed their hands and we saw that their goals are rather greedy, selfish and evil?
You need to write up a genuine answer that compells me to consider why I should trust Wizards after what they did, and if you can't do that, then you need to admit you don't actually have a reason. There's a difference between legal ability and morally should.
This license is... irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license).
Ah I see where you are trying to go with it. The paretthesis clause, by your own interpretation only applies to the content not the liscense as a whole. However, once it is liscensed, it can't be withdrawn. Any of it. Not one whit of the content of the license can be withdrawn. Yes the entire license can be nuked, under the termination clause, but that's not an "At any time" because the Termination Clause exists. It explains the explicate times that Termination can happen. Because their is a termination clause, WotC must abide by that Termination Clause of the license and can't revoke it at "Any time they want".
The termination clause only applies to individuals. We may terminate YOUR license if YOUR green hags eat children and sell their mashed up corpses as drugs (actual WotC Content) or whatever and we decide that that's not cool. Nothing in the termination clause would preclude them from terminating or revoking the entire license as a whole. Not even the use of the word irrevocable, as described.
Why SHOULD they, because the OGL does not take into consideration, many modern realities, because those realities did not even exist at the time it was written. The group that wrote it, did the best they could for the time they were in, but times have changed.
Laws have changed, technology has changed, and your precious OGL1.0a has holes in it that puts it on very shakey ground going forward. A new OGL will stabilize the 3pp market for another 20 or so years. Why right now? Because NFT scammers are on the rise, and VTTs are everywhere, and the OGL1.0A doesn't have adequate safe guards in place for those technologies. While 1.1 was a ******* disaster, an updated and modernized OGL, with community input (Like they are doing) could make the OGL a better document that covers WotC's concerns and the Community needs.
Otherwise, in about 12 years, it deauthorizes all together. And then what?
17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author (3)
Termination of the grant may be effected at any time during a period of five years beginning at the end of thirty-five years from the date of execution of the grant; or, if the grant covers the right of publication of the work, the period begins at the end of thirty-five years from the date of publication of the work under the grant or at the end of forty years from the date of execution of the grant, whichever term ends earlier.
Why right now? Because NFT scammers are on the rise, and VTTs are everywhere, and the OGL1.0A doesn't have adequate safe guards in place for those technologies.
How does having a shiny new license prevent NFT scammers? Like, let's say I'm an NFT scammer and I want to create OWLBEAR (that's SRD right?) art and create, say, 1000 limited edition NFTs. Nothing has changed between 1.0a and 1.2/2.0 I can still do that. The only difference is that now I can slap a giant D&D logo on it because it's neither racist or hateful, unless Wizards decides it is. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical NFT scammer is now MORE protected, because an NFT is a "static electronic file such as ePubs or PDFs" No? Am I even an NFT scammer at that point? Is my Owlbear artwork not Mine? Is it not real art? Is my (interpretation of this) license not a valid one?
Like nobody believes that this is about NFTs, it's obviously not about NFTs, but what are we even talking about here?
This license is... irrevocable (meaning that content licensedunder this license can never be withdrawn from the license).
Ah I see where you are trying to go with it. The paretthesis clause, by your own interpretation only applies to the content not the liscense as a whole. However, once it is liscensed, it can't be withdrawn. Any of it. Not one whit of the content of the license can be withdrawn. Yes the entire license can be nuked, under the termination clause, but that's not an "At any time" because the Termination Clause exists. It explains the explicate times that Termination can happen. Because their is a termination clause, WotC must abide by that Termination Clause of the license and can't revoke it at "Any time they want".
The termination clause only applies to individuals. We may terminate YOUR license if YOUR green hags eat children and sell their mashed up corpses as drugs (actual WotC Content) or whatever and we decide that that's not cool. Nothing in the termination clause would preclude them from terminating or revoking the entire license as a whole. Not even the use of the word irrevocable, as described.
And a lawyer could credibly argue that there is nothing in the termination clause that allows for termination of the license as a whole, and the lack of that definition means that there is no method, beyond the "unenforceable" clause to terminate it as a whole.
It goes both ways. I see your interpretation, but it is based on a flawed concept that they want to nuke the 3PP. I don't see that, and I'm not agreeing with that idea. Do they want control, of course, they are a corporation, and all corporations need some level of control of their product and it's deriviatives. They idea that they shouldn't have that control is kind of anethma to good business.
The termination clause only applies to individuals. We may terminate YOUR license if YOUR green hags eat children and sell their mashed up corpses as drugs (actual WotC Content) or whatever and we decide that that's not cool. Nothing in the termination clause would preclude them from terminating or revoking the entire license as a whole. Not even the use of the word irrevocable, as described.
And a lawyer could credibly argue that there is nothing in the termination clause that allows for termination of the license as a whole, and the lack of that definition means that there is no method, beyond the "unenforceable" clause to terminate it as a whole.
It goes both ways. I see your interpretation, but it is based on a flawed concept that they want to nuke the 3PP. I don't see that, and I'm not agreeing with that idea. Do they want control, of course, they are a corporation, and all corporations need some level of control of their product and it's deriviatives. They idea that they shouldn't have that control is kind of anethma to good business.
No, it's based on They literally just did it, and look, they aren't closing the door that would stop them from doing it again. Fool me once... And, while I'm sure your hypothetical lawyer would give it the old college try, arguing that they need to explicitly say that they can unilaterally terminate the agreement IN THE SECTION called modification and termination, or else they can't do it (and I can't f'ing believe that you can sit here and argue that point with a straight face in light of what's happening) they would lose. There is not a doubt in my mind that if it was tested in court, the court would say the license is revocable despite them using the word somewhere and defining it as they did. Zero. That's just how the law works. That's why it's written the way it is.
Why SHOULD they, because the OGL does not take into consideration, many modern realities, because those realities did not even exist at the time it was written. The group that wrote it, did the best they could for the time they were in, but times have changed.
And yet, instead of rewording 1.0a to address the parts that could be clearer, they are creating a new one that does the opposite of 1.0a.
And yet, instead of rewording 1.0a to address the parts that could be clearer, they are creating a new one that does the opposite of 1.0a.
Because 1.0a is to limited. And they are rewriting just about every portion of it to meet modern needs.
ALso please note this section:
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.
This implies, quite clearly, that there may be unauthorized version of the license, meaning 1.0a CAN be deauthorized.
And yet, instead of rewording 1.0a to address the parts that could be clearer, they are creating a new one that does the opposite of 1.0a.
Because 1.0a is to limited. And they are rewriting just about every portion of it to meet modern needs.
ALso please note this section:
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.
This implies, quite clearly, that there may be unauthorized version of the license, meaning 1.0a CAN be deauthorized.
No, that states that multiple versions of the license may be authorized and there is an ability to choose which version. It does not imply anything about being able to do the opposite of authorizing. Stating that things can be updated is not the same as saying they can be removed in their entirety.
And yet, instead of rewording 1.0a to address the parts that could be clearer, they are creating a new one that does the opposite of 1.0a.
Because 1.0a is to limited. And they are rewriting just about every portion of it to meet modern needs.
ALso please note this section:
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.
This implies, quite clearly, that there may be unauthorized version of the license, meaning 1.0a CAN be deauthorized.
No, it means that some versions might be released, but not ratified, thus never authorized. It clearly states that the license, once authorized, is perpetual and that you may use ANY authorized version. It implies nothing because this is a contract and contracts don't have implied clauses. What is written is what is written and ambiguity in said contract favors the licensee.
Lets be clear about what they did tried to do. They followed clause 9 of the 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.
So they used the "Authorized Version" clause as stating there are "Deauthorzied" versions of the OGL. That gives them authority to deauthorize a version of the OGL, so long as there are Authorized versions in action. This is like OGL 1.0 is no longer authorized, only 1.0a is authorized.
So they didn't "Terminate" the OGL, the deauthorized one version to institute a new version, which is implied as viable by Clause 9.
That is what I would expect the court would find. But I'm not a lawyer, and that would be a long argument in court over the minutiae of contract law and what the definition of Is, is. Intent doesn't come into it. Only what is on the page.
OGL 1.0a also has a termination clause:
13. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.
But the language is very specific about actions taken by the Licensee. And is far more arbitrary, but slightly more lienent on sublicenses, but still doesn't give WotC the right to "Terminate" the contract, which is, symantically, not what they are doing. Deauthorization is not termination. those are very likely arguable as different legal terms in court.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Ah how the worm has turned. Did you really just ask that? Oh the irony. My answer is "because it doesn't say they can't."
You're right, irrevocable is a legal term. It has a legal meaning. That meaning would, generally mean that the license, which is being offered, cannot be revoked or terminated. That's not what it means here, though. It clearly says here that they want it to mean something entirely different. This is what we in lawyerland call a "loophole."
Now, maintaining the topic of the thread, shall we speculate what WotC Intends by, very deliberately, creating a loophole in this way?
100% all of this - shortened down the parts that stood out to me the most because YEAH, it really shouldn't be that hard! Or complicated!
We all literally show up here to play a fantasy game of imagination that largely hinges on very classic, black and white concepts of Good vs. Evil.
The Paladin swoops in and saves the Villagers from being slaughtered by the Dread Lord.
Why the hell is Wizards pulling all this, and why are they even acting like they think they have the right to keep messing with the OGL at all rather than acting like the contrite, ashamed little schoolboys they should be running home with their tail between their legs? They're still showing up acting like they should get to change the OGL at all, when I have ZERO idea why anyone would let them at this point?
Like why would we hand the evil universe ending sword back over to the Dread Lord? Can someone explain that to me?
I mean, I -can- grab an axe and chop my neighbors up - it doesn't mean that I should.
Just because someone, or a corporation, CAN do something, doesn't mean that they should do it. They could lay off half their staff overnight and start trying to sell push pops instead of dungeons and dragons books too - it doesn't make it the wisest choice though.
There are a lot of things that people CAN do. That doesn't mean they should do them. Just because Wizards can 'legally' try and argue that they have the right to de-authorize a past version of the OGL doesn't mean that they should, especially when they've already proven to us that they're only doing it for nefarious purposes. Maybe especially now that we know they're only doing it for nefarious purposes, actually?
Like I'm not going to trust a dude that just tried to murder me. I'm not going to trust Wizards with a legal document that they just got proven they're using to try and screw the community over with, either. I'm not an idiot.
Let them? You gonna stop them somehow?
How are they changing the legal definition of Irrevocable?
This license is Perpetual, Exclusive, and Irrevocable. I don't see any clauses beyond the "Modification" section which clarifies exactly how and when it can be modified or terminated on a case by case basis. The only "Nuke it from orbit" section is the "If it becomes unenforceable." Which is the legalize of "We lost in court, so the document can't be used, and we have to rewirte the whole damn thing, so you can't use this language anymore." It doesn't mean terminate at any time. That doesn't stand up to logic, in the context of the document as a whole.
It does need to improve the verbage in 6f and include some kind of arbitration, but that doesn't mean they can terminate it at any time. How did you get that interpretation? Please be specific with the language in the OGL and not your personal interpretation of it.
Hate to tell you this, but they own the license and the IP. So yes. they get to decide how their IP is used. This OGL seperates the SRD (Rules) from the OGL (IP). So you can use the rules however you want, but not their IP.
I mean, I can't do more for you than BOLDing the specific wording. It literally says what it says. I don't know how to answer that question. Definitions and terms defined within the 4 walls of the contract supersede legal definitions. They defined it, and they didn't define it as "this license can never be withdrawn or revoked." Which is the LEGAL definition that most people would use. The content being licensed is the SRD. Maybe that's where your confusion comes from? Wizards is licensing us to use their content, not our content, in this case, the SRD.
So SRD content can not be removed from this license once added to the license.
That doesn't stop them from just terminating the license though. It doesn't say they can't, at any rate.
I mean, I wish I could reach through the screen and put a lil' gold star on your shirt for what a good job you did, but even if we had the technology to do so Wizards would have made it either not allowed on their site or cost money :< so you'll have to settle with your imagination for me. I was a teacher for a hot minute though so it's got the Real Gold Star Vibes.
I'm not even sure they're confident D&D One will be the 'bees knees' so much as they just want to kill off any other version of it and herd everyone into it because they think that it's the only version of the game they can hyper monetize like they want to, with all those salacious microtransactions waiting for them. I'm sure they're willing to lose half their business now if they think it'll get them tapped into that market - all the studies showing how microtransactions rake in effortless billions has all the CEO's rushing to figure out how to make that happen for them, no matter what their company sells.
Ah I see where you are trying to go with it. The paretthesis clause, by your own interpretation only applies to the content not the liscense as a whole. However, once it is liscensed, it can't be withdrawn. Any of it. Not one whit of the content of the license can be withdrawn. Yes the entire license can be nuked, under the termination clause, but that's not an "At any time" because the Termination Clause exists. It explains the explicate times that Termination can happen. Because their is a termination clause, WotC must abide by that Termination Clause of the license and can't revoke it at "Any time they want".
Hate to tell you this, but that's not an actual response.
Just because you -can- doesn't mean you -should-. Are you listening?
Even if you want to argue they have the legal right - which to me is neither here nor there, it is a non-issue, but it's the only issue you seem to be aware of - it is not something that they morally should do.
We're talking about something beyond man's law, because man's law is a slow, flawed thing that once said it was legally okay to beat your wife so long as the branch wasn't thicker than your thumb. So resting on legality doesn't really do it for me.
Regardless of whether or not they can - why SHOULD they? Why SHOULD they be changing the OGL right now, and why SHOULD we trust them after they already showed their hands and we saw that their goals are rather greedy, selfish and evil?
You need to write up a genuine answer that compells me to consider why I should trust Wizards after what they did, and if you can't do that, then you need to admit you don't actually have a reason. There's a difference between legal ability and morally should.
The termination clause only applies to individuals. We may terminate YOUR license if YOUR green hags eat children and sell their mashed up corpses as drugs (actual WotC Content) or whatever and we decide that that's not cool. Nothing in the termination clause would preclude them from terminating or revoking the entire license as a whole. Not even the use of the word irrevocable, as described.
Why SHOULD they, because the OGL does not take into consideration, many modern realities, because those realities did not even exist at the time it was written. The group that wrote it, did the best they could for the time they were in, but times have changed.
Laws have changed, technology has changed, and your precious OGL1.0a has holes in it that puts it on very shakey ground going forward. A new OGL will stabilize the 3pp market for another 20 or so years. Why right now? Because NFT scammers are on the rise, and VTTs are everywhere, and the OGL1.0A doesn't have adequate safe guards in place for those technologies. While 1.1 was a ******* disaster, an updated and modernized OGL, with community input (Like they are doing) could make the OGL a better document that covers WotC's concerns and the Community needs.
Otherwise, in about 12 years, it deauthorizes all together. And then what?
17 U.S. Code § 203 - Termination of transfers and licenses granted by the author
(3)
How does having a shiny new license prevent NFT scammers? Like, let's say I'm an NFT scammer and I want to create OWLBEAR (that's SRD right?) art and create, say, 1000 limited edition NFTs. Nothing has changed between 1.0a and 1.2/2.0 I can still do that. The only difference is that now I can slap a giant D&D logo on it because it's neither racist or hateful, unless Wizards decides it is. In fact, I would argue that the hypothetical NFT scammer is now MORE protected, because an NFT is a "static electronic file such as ePubs or PDFs" No? Am I even an NFT scammer at that point? Is my Owlbear artwork not Mine? Is it not real art? Is my (interpretation of this) license not a valid one?
Like nobody believes that this is about NFTs, it's obviously not about NFTs, but what are we even talking about here?
And a lawyer could credibly argue that there is nothing in the termination clause that allows for termination of the license as a whole, and the lack of that definition means that there is no method, beyond the "unenforceable" clause to terminate it as a whole.
It goes both ways. I see your interpretation, but it is based on a flawed concept that they want to nuke the 3PP. I don't see that, and I'm not agreeing with that idea. Do they want control, of course, they are a corporation, and all corporations need some level of control of their product and it's deriviatives. They idea that they shouldn't have that control is kind of anethma to good business.
No, it's based on They literally just did it, and look, they aren't closing the door that would stop them from doing it again. Fool me once...
And, while I'm sure your hypothetical lawyer would give it the old college try, arguing that they need to explicitly say that they can unilaterally terminate the agreement IN THE SECTION called modification and termination, or else they can't do it (and I can't f'ing believe that you can sit here and argue that point with a straight face in light of what's happening) they would lose. There is not a doubt in my mind that if it was tested in court, the court would say the license is revocable despite them using the word somewhere and defining it as they did. Zero. That's just how the law works. That's why it's written the way it is.
And yet, instead of rewording 1.0a to address the parts that could be clearer, they are creating a new one that does the opposite of 1.0a.
Because 1.0a is to limited. And they are rewriting just about every portion of it to meet modern needs.
ALso please note this section:
This implies, quite clearly, that there may be unauthorized version of the license, meaning 1.0a CAN be deauthorized.
No, that states that multiple versions of the license may be authorized and there is an ability to choose which version. It does not imply anything about being able to do the opposite of authorizing. Stating that things can be updated is not the same as saying they can be removed in their entirety.
No, it means that some versions might be released, but not ratified, thus never authorized. It clearly states that the license, once authorized, is perpetual and that you may use ANY authorized version. It implies nothing because this is a contract and contracts don't have implied clauses. What is written is what is written and ambiguity in said contract favors the licensee.
Lets be clear about what they did tried to do. They followed clause 9 of the the OGL:
So they used the "Authorized Version" clause as stating there are "Deauthorzied" versions of the OGL. That gives them authority to deauthorize a version of the OGL, so long as there are Authorized versions in action. This is like OGL 1.0 is no longer authorized, only 1.0a is authorized.
So they didn't "Terminate" the OGL, the deauthorized one version to institute a new version, which is implied as viable by Clause 9.
That is what I would expect the court would find. But I'm not a lawyer, and that would be a long argument in court over the minutiae of contract law and what the definition of Is, is. Intent doesn't come into it. Only what is on the page.
OGL 1.0a also has a termination clause:
But the language is very specific about actions taken by the Licensee. And is far more arbitrary, but slightly more lienent on sublicenses, but still doesn't give WotC the right to "Terminate" the contract, which is, symantically, not what they are doing. Deauthorization is not termination. those are very likely arguable as different legal terms in court.