Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Electronic Freedom Foundation weighs in on the OGL!
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="see" data-source="post: 8890831" data-attributes="member: 10531"><p>So, first thing first. The EFF statement has been updated in a quite important way that addresses my issue with their original statement. They are clarifying that there is a difference between a bare license without consideration, and a contract with obligations on both sides, and insofar as the OGL 1.0a was the latter, it is not revocable at will, whether or not it says it's irrevocable.</p><p></p><p>That logic applied to the GPL 2 avoids there being any emergency over the GPL 2 lacking the word "irrevocable".</p><p></p><p>That said, if you're still interested in [SPOILER="what I was writing when I saw the update because I was double-checking my accuracy"]</p><p></p><p></p><p>The argument you linked makes a distinction between <em>contributors</em> and the <em>original licensor</em>. The problem is that the distinction they make means the GPL 2 is revocable by the original licensor.</p><p></p><p>Sure, it's going to be pretty difficult for a mere "contributor", in their terms, to revoke their contributions under the GPL 2, because they needed the GPL 2 for the permission to make their derivative work. But the exact same situation applies with regard to contributors under the OGL and its equivalent clauses (sections 2, 3, and 4). If Paizo tried to revoke the OGL 1.0a with regard to, say, Pathfinder 1st edition, they'd have serious trouble, because their rights to use the 3.5 SRD were dependent on the OGL 1.0a to begin with.</p><p></p><p>The argument does not apply to the original licensor in either case, whether you're talking WotC in the case of SRD text licensed under the OGL 1.0a, or Linus Torvalds licensing Linux and Git code under the GPL 2. They did not need any rights under the license to distribute their work in the first place, so their rights are not dependent on the license, so they can revoke the license without it affecting their rights.</p><p></p><p>(It is entirely possible there's some subtlety in the GPL 2's text, not present in the OGL 1.0a, that somehow prevents the original licensor from revoking it at will. But the argument linked does not rely on or mention any such; it's based on the contributors being dependent on the license.)</p><p></p><p>The promissory estoppel argument for the GPL 2 that follows is the exact same one being made for the irrevocability of the OGL 1.0a. If the inability of an original licensor to revoke the GPL 2 is actually dependent on that, then it's a very big deal, and the EFF statement gliding over that whole argument is, well, disappointing.[/SPOILER]</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="see, post: 8890831, member: 10531"] So, first thing first. The EFF statement has been updated in a quite important way that addresses my issue with their original statement. They are clarifying that there is a difference between a bare license without consideration, and a contract with obligations on both sides, and insofar as the OGL 1.0a was the latter, it is not revocable at will, whether or not it says it's irrevocable. That logic applied to the GPL 2 avoids there being any emergency over the GPL 2 lacking the word "irrevocable". That said, if you're still interested in [SPOILER="what I was writing when I saw the update because I was double-checking my accuracy"] The argument you linked makes a distinction between [I]contributors[/I] and the [I]original licensor[/I]. The problem is that the distinction they make means the GPL 2 is revocable by the original licensor. Sure, it's going to be pretty difficult for a mere "contributor", in their terms, to revoke their contributions under the GPL 2, because they needed the GPL 2 for the permission to make their derivative work. But the exact same situation applies with regard to contributors under the OGL and its equivalent clauses (sections 2, 3, and 4). If Paizo tried to revoke the OGL 1.0a with regard to, say, Pathfinder 1st edition, they'd have serious trouble, because their rights to use the 3.5 SRD were dependent on the OGL 1.0a to begin with. The argument does not apply to the original licensor in either case, whether you're talking WotC in the case of SRD text licensed under the OGL 1.0a, or Linus Torvalds licensing Linux and Git code under the GPL 2. They did not need any rights under the license to distribute their work in the first place, so their rights are not dependent on the license, so they can revoke the license without it affecting their rights. (It is entirely possible there's some subtlety in the GPL 2's text, not present in the OGL 1.0a, that somehow prevents the original licensor from revoking it at will. But the argument linked does not rely on or mention any such; it's based on the contributors being dependent on the license.) The promissory estoppel argument for the GPL 2 that follows is the exact same one being made for the irrevocability of the OGL 1.0a. If the inability of an original licensor to revoke the GPL 2 is actually dependent on that, then it's a very big deal, and the EFF statement gliding over that whole argument is, well, disappointing.[/SPOILER] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Electronic Freedom Foundation weighs in on the OGL!
Top