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 LIVE! 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
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
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="Enrahim2" data-source="post: 8909284" data-attributes="member: 7039850"><p>Actually - might it be that wizards refraining from clarifying their legal position, and claimed effect of the "no longer authorized" might actually be a benefit to several parties?</p><p></p><p>By bringing a highly ambigous claim with weak legal basis they create a situation where actual legal action seem very risky for both sides. If it go to court it really seem like a toss of coin what a decission might be in any particular circumstances given the disagrement between the law people here. Within this volatile legal situation Wizards might hence using non-legalese to stake out certain lines in the sand that it do not want anyone to step over. This include use of Owlbears under 1.0a, any hateful content associated with SRD content in any form, or corporate exploitation of what they consider their IP.</p><p></p><p>The understanding they might hope for is that as long as noone is clearly crossing these lines, they won't consider any legal actions.</p><p></p><p>However being vague about these lines can benefit both WotC and some of those that want to use 1.0a in the following way: For WotC, not being spesific about their interpretation might enable them to tailor the content of their claims to benefit them if they actually find they might have to go the legal way. On the other hand low stakes creators can reasonably safely continue using ogc as long as it is not obvious srd use - as they could make a sufficiently strong claim about ambiguity that it would be too costly for wizards to go after such small fish, as they wouldnt be able to slam-dunk the court case, and would have too much to loose to try to bring it to court without significant legal spending.</p><p></p><p>Might it be that they haven't actually mapped out concrete legal stance yet, but rather have identified this as a legal grey area where they expect they get what they want? That they essentially are wanting to map out a <em>practical</em> boundary of what people can do or not, rather than considering where the actual <em>legal</em> boundaries a court might draw up might go? In that case I guess it make very much sense that wizards try to be as vague as possible with actual statements, but might rather aim at using C&D on clearly problematic cases to identify where it considers it's boundaries?</p><p></p><p>This is of course very speculative from my side. I thought it might belong in this thread as i would guess those with actual law experience might know if this is a type of "legal strategy" that might be found in the wild, or if such an approach is deeply flawed as there is some well known reason such an aproach would for instance put wizards on a significantly worse legal footing.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Enrahim2, post: 8909284, member: 7039850"] Actually - might it be that wizards refraining from clarifying their legal position, and claimed effect of the "no longer authorized" might actually be a benefit to several parties? By bringing a highly ambigous claim with weak legal basis they create a situation where actual legal action seem very risky for both sides. If it go to court it really seem like a toss of coin what a decission might be in any particular circumstances given the disagrement between the law people here. Within this volatile legal situation Wizards might hence using non-legalese to stake out certain lines in the sand that it do not want anyone to step over. This include use of Owlbears under 1.0a, any hateful content associated with SRD content in any form, or corporate exploitation of what they consider their IP. The understanding they might hope for is that as long as noone is clearly crossing these lines, they won't consider any legal actions. However being vague about these lines can benefit both WotC and some of those that want to use 1.0a in the following way: For WotC, not being spesific about their interpretation might enable them to tailor the content of their claims to benefit them if they actually find they might have to go the legal way. On the other hand low stakes creators can reasonably safely continue using ogc as long as it is not obvious srd use - as they could make a sufficiently strong claim about ambiguity that it would be too costly for wizards to go after such small fish, as they wouldnt be able to slam-dunk the court case, and would have too much to loose to try to bring it to court without significant legal spending. Might it be that they haven't actually mapped out concrete legal stance yet, but rather have identified this as a legal grey area where they expect they get what they want? That they essentially are wanting to map out a [I]practical[/I] boundary of what people can do or not, rather than considering where the actual [I]legal[/I] boundaries a court might draw up might go? In that case I guess it make very much sense that wizards try to be as vague as possible with actual statements, but might rather aim at using C&D on clearly problematic cases to identify where it considers it's boundaries? This is of course very speculative from my side. I thought it might belong in this thread as i would guess those with actual law experience might know if this is a type of "legal strategy" that might be found in the wild, or if such an approach is deeply flawed as there is some well known reason such an aproach would for instance put wizards on a significantly worse legal footing. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
Publishing Business & Licensing
Legal Discussion of OGL 1.2
Top