WotC should not attempt to make the license by themselves. There is no point in drafting a license that no one will use. The audiance of this license is 3rd party publishers. 1500 of these publishers have commited to making the ORC license. WotC should join that process and publish the SRD under that license.
Just to jump the other people who will ridicule for this: the odds of this happening are not as good as rolling 01 on a d100. At least of now (Remember that now Microsoft is part of the LInux Foundation. Nobody would have predicted that in 2000).
It's not constructive as far as making 1.2 the best it can be, which is the topic of this thread. There are plenty of "Keep 1.0a active" threads already going elsewhere on DDB.
False. 1.2 cannot thrive if nobody will use it.
Nobody will use it if wizards comes at this from an attitude that treats the community at large like freelance interns. The OGL should be an offer of partnership, not a noose by which one might hang themself.
Maintaining 1.0a means that wizards needs to balance the cost of compliance with equal benefit and security that is at LEAST as strong as what they offered previously, or else people will not use it. That is a very healthy start to making 1.2 better than it is. At this point, I would even suggest that divorcing themselves entirely from 1.2 would be doing them a great service. You want the community's trust and acceptance? There you go.
Okay, so give a constructive suggestion as to what should be in 1.2 so 3PP will want to use it. Saying "Keep 1.0a!!!" over & over doesn't change the content of 1.2, nor is it the topic of this thread.
So, for commentary that's actually on topic for this thread:
1(b): Works Covered: what the heck is a 'static electronic file'? Their examples are less helpful than they might think, pdf has a lot of capabilities most people don't use.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
9(e): Class Action Waiver: large numbers of small claimants is exactly what class action is designed for.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
In a legal document the subsection headings have actual legal weight. If you make a statement about something that does not pertain to the subsection the statement is in, it becomes invalid. So adding something to the Contact section that is not about contacting WotC, would not be enforceable.
So, for commentary that's actually on topic for this thread:
1(b): Works Covered: what the heck is a 'static electronic file'? Their examples are less helpful than they might think, pdf has a lot of capabilities most people don't use.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
9(e): Class Action Waiver: large numbers of small claimants is exactly what class action is designed for.
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person. Obviously some people can get down to the ones & zeroes & do whatever, but a PDF with no entry fields would probably qualify, as would something like the digital books from here or DM's Guild.
9(e) I'm curious how likely class actions would even be, since each initial case would be based on that individual party's alleged violation of the OGL. If WotC did something crazy dumb like cite companies owned by people who were X more often than non-X run companies, you wouldn't need a OGL breach to sue them into the ground, you'd use anti-discrimination laws.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
In a legal document the subsection headings have actual legal weight. If you make a statement about something that does not pertain to the subsection the statement is in, it becomes invalid. So adding something to the Contact section that is not about contacting WotC, would not be enforceable.
I cannot speak for everywhere, but in my state, your statement would be decidedly untrue - there’s very clear caselaw stating that headings might be informative to better understanding terms, but they are not dispositive and you have to look at the actual terms themselves.
So you might want to be careful repeating this “fact” moving forward.
So, for commentary that's actually on topic for this thread:
1(b): Works Covered: what the heck is a 'static electronic file'? Their examples are less helpful than they might think, pdf has a lot of capabilities most people don't use.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
9(e): Class Action Waiver: large numbers of small claimants is exactly what class action is designed for.
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person. Obviously some people can get down to the ones & zeroes & do whatever, but a PDF with no entry fields would probably qualify, as would something like the digital books from here or DM's Guild.
9(e) I'm curious how likely class actions would even be, since each initial case would be based on that individual party's alleged violation of the OGL. If WotC did something crazy dumb like cite companies owned by people who were X more often than non-X run companies, you wouldn't need a OGL breach to sue them into the ground, you'd use anti-discrimination laws.
I assumed they meant a flattened adobe reader compatible PDF, but yeah, now that you mention it, Acrobat and publisher are basically word processors at this point. I'm actually kindof hazy about what you CAN'T do with a PDF file, now that I actually give it half a second's thought. It's at least as powerful as Excel. Perhaps amazon's proprietary .mobi would be better, since you kindof need to break in to mess with it?
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person.
That's pretty clearly not what it means, a video game is a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person, and there's nothing terribly difficult about modifying either pdf or epub.
My assumption is that they're trying to rule out executable code, but that's... not as firm a line as you might think.
WotC should not attempt to make the license by themselves. There is no point in drafting a license that no one will use. The audiance of this license is 3rd party publishers. 1500 of these publishers have commited to making the ORC license. WotC should join that process and publish the SRD under that license.
Just to jump the other people who will ridicule for this: the odds of this happening are not as good as rolling 01 on a d100. At least of now (Remember that now Microsoft is part of the LInux Foundation. Nobody would have predicted that in 2000).
I think the is a good chance that WotC can get most of what they want by participating in ORC. They can likely get the following added to ORC:
* 9 (g) Waiver of Jury Trial.
* 3 (a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.
* 3 (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
Third party publishers would want the same protections from lawsuits. By working with ORC they could get 1500 publishers to not sue them over their movies and TV shows.
2) They could remove the "you can't sue us" provision from 6f so that people found to be in violation by WotC have the ability to defend themselves. (the "no jury trial"/arbitration clause in 9g would still exist in this case.)
3) They could do both.
*The PCL: "You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." "General Public" language would allow them to keep up with changing times/culture, while lessening their power to be the sole arbiter of license revocation.
For the infamous 6(f) clause, I'd say it's way too vague especially since there is a huge amount of focus on it. I'd suggest it to be completely rewritten to make what it sets out to do is as unambiguous as possible.
"No Hateful Content or Conduct". Okay. That part is simple and easy to understand.
Then it muddles it up by actually saying, according to my least charitable reading, your content should instead not be "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing". None of those things are the same as "hateful". Then it says WotC decides what counts as hateful, which I would say is pointless, because hateful is not on the list. If WotC then says my content is 'harmful', which is on the list, then I'll contest that claim, because I have only agreed to not contest a 'hateful' claim and maybe those two things are different.
Now it's not like I imagine it would do anyone much good in court for long unless it's an especially sassy judge, but given how WotC allegedly thinks a single missing word sinks the 1.0a, then 6(f) should be held to the highest standards.
If they wanted to say WotC decides what counts as harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, harassing AND hateful content, then WotC should write that explicitly.
-Section 6f overreaches and provides over-broad terminative powers to Wizards. A person should not lose their business because they said something pithy on Twitter. I would strike the "hateful conduct" line, and add a clause similar to Section 3a wherein provision for lawsuit is permitted but limited.
I agree with you in principle, here. But I don't think the issue is saying something pithy. I think it's more, as I said in another thread, if someone goes full-on Kanye meltdown, they want to be able to cut ties. After all, he wasn't printing his hate speech on the clothes he was designing, but those brands still needed to end their relationship with him to protect themselves. If some popular 3pp turns out to be some kind of awful something-ist, Wizards should have a recourse.
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person.
That's pretty clearly not what it means, a video game is a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person, and there's nothing terribly difficult about modifying either pdf or epub.
My assumption is that they're trying to rule out executable code, but that's... not as firm a line as you might think.
I believe the word "static" would be key here. "Lacking in movement, action, or change..." is the common definition. To me that would be a flattened PDF.
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person.
That's pretty clearly not what it means, a video game is a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person, and there's nothing terribly difficult about modifying either pdf or epub.
My assumption is that they're trying to rule out executable code, but that's... not as firm a line as you might think.
I believe the word "static" would be key here. "Lacking in movement, action, or change..." is the common definition. To me that would be a flattened PDF.
To me, that would be a file that doesn't change after distribution. Which is, frankly, a hole you can drive a truck through, so probably not what they're after, but if they're trying to produce an enforceable legal document they should use solid well-defined terms.
IANAL but I would guess they chose static/PDF/ePub because there is probably caselaw/precedent around those formats being (for all intents and purposes) non-dynamic. A TTRPG can't possibly be the first use case ever where the immutability of the distribution medium mattered from a contract or license perspective.
The standard I remember hearing once for "static" PDFs is "Printable". I.e. "Can this document be printed, at least in theory, without loss of functionality or readability?" Which, frankly, seems like a mostly reasonable standard to me, though obviously it's not in the document so maybe it should be. More potential feedback - ask them to define the term "static file".
IANAL but I would guess they chose static/PDF/ePub because there is probably caselaw/precedent around those formats being (for all intents and purposes) non-dynamic. A TTRPG can't possibly be the first use case ever where the immutability of the distribution medium mattered from a contract or license perspective.
I don't think immutability is actually what they're after -- I could encode the SRD in a great big blob of xml or json, which would be entirely immutable, and then have a program that reads that blob and uses its contents to do whatever. It would be a lot more work, but you could also do that with a SRD that's encoded in pdf or epub (probably easier with epub).
My assumption is what they're after is "reads like a book" but in the end that's up to the discretion of the reader software.
First, I reject that 1.0a can we be de-authorized. And this is not a minor point, and with the legal trickery in section 2 (they redefined irrevocable to mean something it doesn’t normally mean) it means we absolutely must stand our Ground on this point.
With that stated, to improve this for future versions of the SDR - which they can do without revoking 1.0a/5.1 - then they have to do the following at a bare minimum:
1. Remove the language that does the following: 1. Prohibits trial by jury, 2. re-definitions of all legal terms, 3. Prevents collective/class lawsuits.
2. Change the severability clause, so that only those portions of the document that are invalid or unenforceable are voided. Anything less is an open invitation for them to pull this stunt later.
3. Remove any language or suggestion they can terminate the license due to Content that they find unacceptable. Replace it with a requirement that the author must specify (front page, cover, websites, etc.). A statement, that wizards of the Coast disavowals this product and recommend against its use. This is an acceptable compromise, in which wizards of the Coast can publicly denounce a product, and even label it, as such, without becoming the authority on allowable content.
4. Include clear explicit statements that royalties may never be charged, that the license is irrevocable, in perpetuity, cannot be deauthorized.
5. Specify specific versions of the SDR, VTT policy, and Style guidelines with the explicit statement that Content cannot be revoked, the authorized, etc. in perpetuity, and under revocable as associated with this license.
6. fix the VTT policy so that the only excluded limitation is that monsters & npcs cannot behave, autonomously or automatically. (DMs must select actions taken.) they can put whatever they want about NFTs in there, don’t care won’t play anything with them anyway.
7. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We study hundreds of pages of rules as part of our game. We’re not smarter than your lawyers, but we are very very persistent.
First, I reject that 1.0a can be be de-authorized.
And this is not a minor point, and with the legal trickery in section 2 (they redefined irrevocable to mean something it doesn’t normally mean) it means we absolutely must stand our Ground on this point.
With that stated, to improve this for future versions of the SDR - which they can do without revoking 1.0a/5.1 - then they have to do the following at a bare minimum:
1. Remove the language that does the following: 1. Prohibits trial by jury, 2. re-definitions of all legal terms, 3. Prevents collective/class lawsuits.
2. Change the severability clause, so that only those portions of the document that are invalid or unenforceable are voided. Anything less is an open invitation for them to pull this stunt later.
3. Remove any language or suggestion they can terminate the license due to Content that they find unacceptable. Replace it with a requirement that the author must specify (front page, cover, websites, etc.). A statement, that wizards of the Coast disavowals this product and recommend against its use. This is an acceptable compromise, in which wizards of the Coast can publicly denounce a product, and even label it, as such, without becoming the authority on allowable content.
4. Include clear explicit statements that royalties may never be charged, that the license is irrevocable, in perpetuity, cannot be deauthorized.
5. Specify specific versions of the SDR, VTT policy, and Style guidelines with the explicit statement that Content cannot be revoked, the authorized, etc. in perpetuity, and under revocable as associated with this license.
6. fix the VTT policy so that the only excluded limitation is that monsters & npcs cannot behave, autonomously or automatically. (DMs must select actions taken.) they can put whatever they want about NFTs in there, don’t care won’t play anything with them anyway.
7. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We study hundreds of pages of rules as part of our game. We’re not smarter than your lawyers, but we are very very persistent.
Some people keep stating this, but it seems like it's just something that they heard, and they agree with it, so it must be true. What sentence(s) in the OGL 1.0a are people using as support for saying that WotC can't choose to stop agreeing to use the license for new products? I see where they can't pull the license from existing, already licensed products unless there is a breach, but not where they have to keep agreeing to the license for new products until the end of time.
First, I reject that 1.0a can be be de-authorized.
And this is not a minor point, and with the legal trickery in section 2 (they redefined irrevocable to mean something it doesn’t normally mean) it means we absolutely must stand our Ground on this point.
With that stated, to improve this for future versions of the SDR - which they can do without revoking 1.0a/5.1 - then they have to do the following at a bare minimum:
1. Remove the language that does the following: 1. Prohibits trial by jury, 2. re-definitions of all legal terms, 3. Prevents collective/class lawsuits.
2. Change the severability clause, so that only those portions of the document that are invalid or unenforceable are voided. Anything less is an open invitation for them to pull this stunt later.
3. Remove any language or suggestion they can terminate the license due to Content that they find unacceptable. Replace it with a requirement that the author must specify (front page, cover, websites, etc.). A statement, that wizards of the Coast disavowals this product and recommend against its use. This is an acceptable compromise, in which wizards of the Coast can publicly denounce a product, and even label it, as such, without becoming the authority on allowable content.
4. Include clear explicit statements that royalties may never be charged, that the license is irrevocable, in perpetuity, cannot be deauthorized.
5. Specify specific versions of the SDR, VTT policy, and Style guidelines with the explicit statement that Content cannot be revoked, the authorized, etc. in perpetuity, and under revocable as associated with this license.
6. fix the VTT policy so that the only excluded limitation is that monsters & npcs cannot behave, autonomously or automatically. (DMs must select actions taken.) they can put whatever they want about NFTs in there, don’t care won’t play anything with them anyway.
7. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We study hundreds of pages of rules as part of our game. We’re not smarter than your lawyers, but we are very very persistent.
Some people keep stating this, but it seems like it's just something that they heard, and they agree with it, so it must be true. What sentence(s) in the OGL 1.0a are people using as support for saying that WotC can't choose to stop agreeing to use the license for new products? I see where they can't pull the license from existing, already licensed products unless there is a breach, but not where they have to keep agreeing to the license for new products until the end of time.
Contract Law is such that if there is not a dedicated clause for a process in a contract then it is interpreted against the writer. So in this case since WotC wrote the contract and did not specify a deauthorization process (And since it isn't specified we have to rely on external commentary which means we can pull in the 2002, 2004, and 2008 comments on this exact topic) there isn't one. Which is part of why it's funny since the actual argument here is "What in OGL 1.0a lets you revoke or deauthorize OGL 1.0a" and the answer is nothing and that was intentional per several of the people who drafted it.
Given this contract also predates the nonsense with needing irrevocable within a perpetual contract the context and realistic interpretation of OGL 1.0a leads to a common thought that OGL 1.0a is functionally irrevocable as they cannot withdraw approval of the license for currently licensed materials.
Hasbro's lawyers would like to make an argument against this that more or less amounts to "Sue us and we will bury you in so much paperwork and so many legal fees that you will cease to exist before the case is finished ". Which honestly isn't a great legal argument until you account for the fact that Hasbro and WotC control a ridiculous percentage of the TTRPG market and have a significantly larger legal budget.
Just to jump the other people who will ridicule for this: the odds of this happening are not as good as rolling 01 on a d100. At least of now (Remember that now Microsoft is part of the LInux Foundation. Nobody would have predicted that in 2000).
Okay, so give a constructive suggestion as to what should be in 1.2 so 3PP will want to use it. Saying "Keep 1.0a!!!" over & over doesn't change the content of 1.2, nor is it the topic of this thread.
So, for commentary that's actually on topic for this thread:
1(b): Works Covered: what the heck is a 'static electronic file'? Their examples are less helpful than they might think, pdf has a lot of capabilities most people don't use.
2, 7(a): Modification: there are no restrictions on what types of modifications can be made. I assume the intent is to allow new methods of contacting and attribution, but this clause allows more extensive modifications.
9(e): Class Action Waiver: large numbers of small claimants is exactly what class action is designed for.
In a legal document the subsection headings have actual legal weight. If you make a statement about something that does not pertain to the subsection the statement is in, it becomes invalid. So adding something to the Contact section that is not about contacting WotC, would not be enforceable.
1(b) would be a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person. Obviously some people can get down to the ones & zeroes & do whatever, but a PDF with no entry fields would probably qualify, as would something like the digital books from here or DM's Guild.
9(e) I'm curious how likely class actions would even be, since each initial case would be based on that individual party's alleged violation of the OGL. If WotC did something crazy dumb like cite companies owned by people who were X more often than non-X run companies, you wouldn't need a OGL breach to sue them into the ground, you'd use anti-discrimination laws.
I cannot speak for everywhere, but in my state, your statement would be decidedly untrue - there’s very clear caselaw stating that headings might be informative to better understanding terms, but they are not dispositive and you have to look at the actual terms themselves.
So you might want to be careful repeating this “fact” moving forward.
I assumed they meant a flattened adobe reader compatible PDF, but yeah, now that you mention it, Acrobat and publisher are basically word processors at this point. I'm actually kindof hazy about what you CAN'T do with a PDF file, now that I actually give it half a second's thought. It's at least as powerful as Excel. Perhaps amazon's proprietary .mobi would be better, since you kindof need to break in to mess with it?
That's pretty clearly not what it means, a video game is a computer file that can't reasonably be modified by a normal person, and there's nothing terribly difficult about modifying either pdf or epub.
My assumption is that they're trying to rule out executable code, but that's... not as firm a line as you might think.
I think the is a good chance that WotC can get most of what they want by participating in ORC. They can likely get the following added to ORC:
* 9 (g) Waiver of Jury Trial.
* 3 (a) Any such claim will be brought only as a lawsuit for breach of contract, and only for money damages. You expressly agree that money damages are an adequate remedy for such a breach, and that you will not seek or be entitled to injunctive relief.
* 3 (b) In any such lawsuit, you must show that we knowingly and intentionally copied your Licensed Work. Access and substantial similarity will not be enough to prove a breach of this Section 3.
Third party publishers would want the same protections from lawsuits. By working with ORC they could get 1500 publishers to not sue them over their movies and TV shows.
Great idea for a thread, here's hoping the "1.0a or bust!" people stay out.
I'll crosspost my previous suggestion for the hate speech/morality provision (6f):
1) They could use a "general public" language standard like Paizo uses in its Pathfinder Compatibility License.
2) They could remove the "you can't sue us" provision from 6f so that people found to be in violation by WotC have the ability to defend themselves. (the "no jury trial"/arbitration clause in 9g would still exist in this case.)
3) They could do both.
*The PCL: "You agree to not use this permission for material that the general public would classify as "adult content," offensive, or inappropriate for minors, and you agree that such use would irreparably harm Paizo." "General Public" language would allow them to keep up with changing times/culture, while lessening their power to be the sole arbiter of license revocation.
For the infamous 6(f) clause, I'd say it's way too vague especially since there is a huge amount of focus on it. I'd suggest it to be completely rewritten to make what it sets out to do is as unambiguous as possible.
"No Hateful Content or Conduct". Okay. That part is simple and easy to understand.
Then it muddles it up by actually saying, according to my least charitable reading, your content should instead not be "harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing". None of those things are the same as "hateful". Then it says WotC decides what counts as hateful, which I would say is pointless, because hateful is not on the list. If WotC then says my content is 'harmful', which is on the list, then I'll contest that claim, because I have only agreed to not contest a 'hateful' claim and maybe those two things are different.
Now it's not like I imagine it would do anyone much good in court for long unless it's an especially sassy judge, but given how WotC allegedly thinks a single missing word sinks the 1.0a, then 6(f) should be held to the highest standards.
If they wanted to say WotC decides what counts as harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, harassing AND hateful content, then WotC should write that explicitly.
I agree with you in principle, here. But I don't think the issue is saying something pithy. I think it's more, as I said in another thread, if someone goes full-on Kanye meltdown, they want to be able to cut ties. After all, he wasn't printing his hate speech on the clothes he was designing, but those brands still needed to end their relationship with him to protect themselves. If some popular 3pp turns out to be some kind of awful something-ist, Wizards should have a recourse.
I believe the word "static" would be key here. "Lacking in movement, action, or change..." is the common definition. To me that would be a flattened PDF.
To me, that would be a file that doesn't change after distribution. Which is, frankly, a hole you can drive a truck through, so probably not what they're after, but if they're trying to produce an enforceable legal document they should use solid well-defined terms.
IANAL but I would guess they chose static/PDF/ePub because there is probably caselaw/precedent around those formats being (for all intents and purposes) non-dynamic. A TTRPG can't possibly be the first use case ever where the immutability of the distribution medium mattered from a contract or license perspective.
The standard I remember hearing once for "static" PDFs is "Printable". I.e. "Can this document be printed, at least in theory, without loss of functionality or readability?" Which, frankly, seems like a mostly reasonable standard to me, though obviously it's not in the document so maybe it should be. More potential feedback - ask them to define the term "static file".
Please do not contact or message me.
I don't think immutability is actually what they're after -- I could encode the SRD in a great big blob of xml or json, which would be entirely immutable, and then have a program that reads that blob and uses its contents to do whatever. It would be a lot more work, but you could also do that with a SRD that's encoded in pdf or epub (probably easier with epub).
My assumption is what they're after is "reads like a book" but in the end that's up to the discretion of the reader software.
First, I reject that 1.0a can we be de-authorized. And this is not a minor point, and with the legal trickery in section 2 (they redefined irrevocable to mean something it doesn’t normally mean) it means we absolutely must stand our Ground on this point.
With that stated, to improve this for future versions of the SDR - which they can do without revoking 1.0a/5.1 - then they have to do the following at a bare minimum:
1. Remove the language that does the following: 1. Prohibits trial by jury, 2. re-definitions of all legal terms, 3. Prevents collective/class lawsuits.
2. Change the severability clause, so that only those portions of the document that are invalid or unenforceable are voided. Anything less is an open invitation for them to pull this stunt later.
3. Remove any language or suggestion they can terminate the license due to Content that they find unacceptable. Replace it with a requirement that the author must specify (front page, cover, websites, etc.). A statement, that wizards of the Coast disavowals this product and recommend against its use. This is an acceptable compromise, in which wizards of the Coast can publicly denounce a product, and even label it, as such, without becoming the authority on allowable content.
4. Include clear explicit statements that royalties may never be charged, that the license is irrevocable, in perpetuity, cannot be deauthorized.
5. Specify specific versions of the SDR, VTT policy, and Style guidelines with the explicit statement that Content cannot be revoked, the authorized, etc. in perpetuity, and under revocable as associated with this license.
6. fix the VTT policy so that the only excluded limitation is that monsters & npcs cannot behave, autonomously or automatically. (DMs must select actions taken.) they can put whatever they want about NFTs in there, don’t care won’t play anything with them anyway.
7. Stop trying to pull the wool over our eyes. We study hundreds of pages of rules as part of our game. We’re not smarter than your lawyers, but we are very very persistent.
Some people keep stating this, but it seems like it's just something that they heard, and they agree with it, so it must be true. What sentence(s) in the OGL 1.0a are people using as support for saying that WotC can't choose to stop agreeing to use the license for new products? I see where they can't pull the license from existing, already licensed products unless there is a breach, but not where they have to keep agreeing to the license for new products until the end of time.
Contract Law is such that if there is not a dedicated clause for a process in a contract then it is interpreted against the writer. So in this case since WotC wrote the contract and did not specify a deauthorization process (And since it isn't specified we have to rely on external commentary which means we can pull in the 2002, 2004, and 2008 comments on this exact topic) there isn't one. Which is part of why it's funny since the actual argument here is "What in OGL 1.0a lets you revoke or deauthorize OGL 1.0a" and the answer is nothing and that was intentional per several of the people who drafted it.
Given this contract also predates the nonsense with needing irrevocable within a perpetual contract the context and realistic interpretation of OGL 1.0a leads to a common thought that OGL 1.0a is functionally irrevocable as they cannot withdraw approval of the license for currently licensed materials.
Hasbro's lawyers would like to make an argument against this that more or less amounts to "Sue us and we will bury you in so much paperwork and so many legal fees that you will cease to exist before the case is finished ". Which honestly isn't a great legal argument until you account for the fact that Hasbro and WotC control a ridiculous percentage of the TTRPG market and have a significantly larger legal budget.