Editing Open Game License (section)

=== Open Game License ===
Those individuals, groups and publishing companies that license their works under the OGL and similar documents are sometimes collectively referred to as the "[[open gaming]] movement".<ref>{{cite web |last=Wizards of the Coast |author-link=Wizards of the Coast |date=2004-01-26 |title=The Open Gaming Foundation: Frequently Asked Questions |url=http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123e |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20040407181800/http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=d20/oglfaq/20040123e |archive-date=April 7, 2004 |access-date=2008-02-26}}</ref> The OGL led to the development of the stand-alone ''[[Pathfinder Roleplaying Game]]'' which is a modified version of the 3.5 game.<ref name="Baichtal">{{cite web |last=Baichtal |first=John |date=March 25, 2008 |title=No D&D 4E for Paizo?!? |url=https://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/03/no-dd-4e-for-pa/ |access-date=October 1, 2013 |work=Wired.com |publisher=Conde Nast |archive-date=July 17, 2012 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120717020004/http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2008/03/no-dd-4e-for-pa |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name=":0" /> James Maliszewski, for ''[[The Escapist (magazine)|The Escapist]]'', commented that the OGL also helped launch the [[Old School Revival]] movement and that "by 2002, the idea of using the SRD to reverse engineer the out-of-print ''AD&D'' took root on Dragonsfoot and other old school forums".<ref name=":40">{{Cite web |last=Maliszewski |first=James |date=August 20, 2009 |title=Full Circle: A History of the Old School Revival |url=https://www.escapistmagazine.com/full-circle-a-history-of-the-old-school-revival/ |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210922014251/https://www.escapistmagazine.com/full-circle-a-history-of-the-old-school-revival/ |archive-date=September 22, 2021 |access-date=January 28, 2023 |website=The Escapist |language=en-US}}</ref> Academics Benoît Demil and Xavier Lecocq, in the economic journal ''Revue d'économie industrielle'' in 2014, stated that the OGL had an immediate impact on the tabletop role-playing industry with an increase in new TTRP publications where the "majority of the new entrants adopted" the d20 license; d20 products sold at a higher rate than non-d20 products until the mid 2000s.<ref name=":10" /> It "was considered by WOTC's managers as a huge success due to the large movement of adoption it created among publishers".<ref name=":10" /> They also highlighted that the "success was amplified by the rise of electronic publishing".<ref name=":10" /> Christopher B. Seaman and Thuan Tran, for the academic journal ''[[Iowa Law Review]]'' in 2022, also highlighted that the release of the OGL "created a major shift in the RPG industry" and "led to a boom in the RPG industry in the early 2000s".<ref name=":9">{{Cite journal |last1=Seaman |first1=Christopher B. |last2=Tran |first2=Thuan |date=2022 |title=Intellectual Property and Tabletop Games |url=https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-107-issue-4/intellectual-property-and-tabletop-games/ |journal=[[Iowa Law Review]] |volume=107 |issue=4 |pages=1615–1683 |access-date=December 21, 2022 |archive-date=January 11, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230111112235/https://ilr.law.uiowa.edu/print/volume-107-issue-4/intellectual-property-and-tabletop-games/ |url-status=live }}</ref> They commented that "the emergence of open source licensing for RPGs facilitates user creativity and innovation, as dozens of ''D&D''-compatible supplements have been created under the Open Game License".<ref name=":9" />

Kit Walsh, a senior staff attorney at the [[Electronic Frontier Foundation]] in 2023, highlighted that roleplaying games have aspects that are copyrightable, such as creative expression, and aspects that are not, such as functional descriptions of game mechanics. Walsh commented that the original OGL "is very narrow" and includes "elements that are not copyrightable in the first place" – agreeing to the OGL "almost certainly means you have {{Sic|''fewer''}} rights to use elements of Dungeons and Dragons than you would otherwise. For example, absent this agreement, you have a legal right to create a work using noncopyrightable elements of D&D or making fair use of copyrightable elements".<ref name=":22">{{Cite web |last=Walsh |first=Kit |date=2023-01-10 |title=Beware the Gifts of Dragons: How D&D's Open Gaming License May Have Become a Trap for Creators |url=https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators |access-date=2023-01-11 |website=Electronic Frontier Foundation |language=en |archive-date=January 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230112003746/https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/01/beware-gifts-dragons-how-dds-open-gaming-license-may-have-become-trap-creators |url-status=live }}</ref> However, Walsh highlights the "primary benefit" is knowing the exact terms in order to not be sued by Wizards of the Coast and avoiding "having to prove your fair use rights or engage in an expensive legal battle over copyrightability in court".<ref name=":22" /> Walsh stated that "open licenses can involve a lot of legalese that makes them hard for a layperson to understand" and explained that "perpetual" and "irrevocable" are separate legal terms; while the OGL states it is perpetual, it does not state that it is irrevocable.<ref name=":22" /> In an update to the article, Walsh wrote that past statements by Wizards of the Coast make "very clear that Wizards always thought of this as a contract with obligations for both sides [...]. Unlike a bare license without consideration, an offer to contract like this cannot be revoked unilaterally once it has been accepted, under the law of [[Washington (state)|Washington]] (where they are located) and other states". Walsh stated that works already published "under OGL 1.0a are entitled to the benefit Wizards of the Coast promised them under that contract. But Wizards can revoke the offer of the OGL 1.0a as to new potential users who haven't yet accepted its terms".<ref name=":22" /> Kyle Orland, for ''[[Ars Technica]]'', highlighted Walsh's analysis and commented that the "legal situation is complicated a bit [...] by Section 9" of the original OGL as that clause states third party designers can "use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License".<ref name=":25">{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=2023-01-11 |title=RPG fans irate as D&D tries to shut its "open" game license |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/rpg-fans-irate-as-dd-tries-to-shut-its-open-game-license/ |access-date=2023-01-12 |website=Ars Technica |language=en-us |archive-date=January 12, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230112004242/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/rpg-fans-irate-as-dd-tries-to-shut-its-open-game-license/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Orland stated that Section 9 coupled with statements made by Wizards of the Coast in the original 2001 FAQ, seem "to suggest that companies could continue using the old license to make products based on the old ruleset that was published under OGL v1.0a (even if upcoming rules changes are covered more directly by OGL v1.1)".<ref name=":25" />