I wasn't gonna reply to this but I keep thinking I should.
Demetrius wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
From what I see, it's as awful as it was, but this time more sneaky. The problems I see (I'm not a lawyer):
A. 1.0a is still de-authorized. (p.2) They're still breaking their promises, so we can't trust them. I'm sure this draft contains thousands of legal loopholes to exploit.
This is the biggest problem. They should not revoke what they promised to be there to stay!
There are four ways they can do away with the OGL 1.0(a):
- Get you to violate its terms and revoke the license.
- Get you to accept a new agreement. BEWARE WEBSITE TOS CHANGES!
- Sue and win (no-show = default, snow a judge about how law doesn't apply, etc.)
- Convince you or others it's revoked because they say so.
We've got a few Linux folks here: Everything out of Hasbro is, and has been, FUD. They want to create a miasma of
Fear,
Uncertainty, and
Doubt.
They might sue me! I can't fight them if they do that! They risk a lot more than you do if they try suing. The law, precedent, case law, and good sense are against them. Not only that, how much of that stuff can they really own, anyway? How much more that isn't part of the SRD is also not ownable?
So far, thankfully, their fear tactics are mostly not working. So now they're trying "What, you said you wanted open license we don't control! It's CC! What more do you want?!" Except it's not, and they're playing the same games as before. You've done a fine job outlining how, which is why I wasn't gonna reply to this.
Demetrius wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
B. The Severability seems like
legal loophole to be able to revoke the new license at any time (9.d)? Like, if a small part becomes invalid or unenforceable, they can choose to revoke the whole license.
I'm sure their lawyers have already included a small bit that is not enforceable, just as a means to revoke it at any time.
Any single word need to be checked beforehand to ensure it's enforceable! It's huge amout of work no one will take. (Also, even if 100% is enforceable now, something is sure to become non-enforceable in the future.)
Severability normally says simply this: "If part of this agreement is not enforceable, it's as if it doesn't exist." Meaning, if it's illegal where you live for a company to force you to arbitration and their contract tries to do that … it DOES NOT void the contract. Rather, it's like that clause was simply not there. Beware anything that says more than that, particularly if it says the agreement
IS ended if something in it is illegal. That'd be a way to knowingly insert a poison pill into an agreement.
Demetrius wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
C. d20 SRD from 3.5e is not allowed under this draft. It only allows 5e rules. 3.5e rules are off the table. (1.a.iii, 1.c.iii)
This is way more insidious than you realize! If you accept these terms and then you go and make something for 5E/6E/One D&D to Screw Them All, it means you cannot turn around and make that thing for Pathfinder 1E, and they're hoping you'll maybe also think not for Pathfinder 2E either.
It's
possible they've never thought of that. But um, everything else they've done has been so utterly disgustingly duplicitous, dishonest, and unethical … I just assume that if there's something nefarious they might attempt to argue, assume they're preparing to argue it.
Demetrius wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
D. They still can cancel
any license by declaring it as hateful, with no legal recourse! (6.f)
Discrimination is a problem, but it's problem
for Wizards too. What can prevent Wizards from discrimination? Legal system has its flaws, but it's ultimately more transparent than any decision-making inside WotC.
If they really want to combat discrimination, they should remove the rule that forbids contesting their decision in court.
While it's there, I think it's just a way for Wizards to cancel
any product, period. They say they'll use it against hateful projects, but with the license as written, they can just declare anyone ‘hateful’.
Also a non-starter. They don't need a Copyright cudgel for this. Not because ave some people have potentially argued that they could go after you otherwise regardless of the license (they can't, at least under US law), but because if they come out with something truly objectionable to the vast majority of people, we will solve the problem for them by not buying it and spreading the word that it's pretty bad.
Paizo's gone on record saying that they will not be attempting to put something like this into their license. "Wouldn't that be just replacing one person with a killswitch on anything, for any reason, with another person with a killswitch?" I was pretty sure they'd have that much sense, and it sounds like they do. Proof will be in the pudding. But that won't affect BF much since BF doesn't have a commercial model to protect.
Demetrius wrote: ↑Thu Jan 19, 2023 5:46 pm
E. Sword of Damocles over virtual tabletops. It refers to some non-existent document that is probably non-irrevocable, so they can revoke it at any time. (1.b)
F. Any words on DnD Beyond or in FAQs don't matter (9.b). So, any promises they make that are not in legal text are worthless.
G. Limiting the rights to sue them. I think they've shown we should not trust them, so why should we give them away these rights? (9.e, 9.g, 9.h)
See, they know that the fact they interpreted the OGL 1.0(a) as being irrevocable publicly is biting them in the ass. Even if they argue in court that wasn't part of the legal agreement, it can be interpreted that way and they know that they themselves did so. They're trying to avoid making that mistake again.
Every time Hasbro opens their mouths, it makes them look more dishonest. And more desperate. I smell their fear from six hours away. I think they're still not afraid of us, though. Not yet anyway.