• 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!

WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward. The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it...

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.


They also list a number of points of clarity --
  • Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
  • The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away
OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".


Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FormerLurker

Adventurer
Paizo clearly stated they were ready and willing to defend in court. By definition, a defender doesn't actually engage until attacked. But they can take a stance, which Paizo did.
But they didn't and haven't filed a suit.

And I really hate how people keep making me defend the company that gave us the demon lord of abduction and strangers.
No one is making you do anything. That's all you.

And yet, they can't stop referring to them while they burn down their house.
When have WotC mentioned Paizo at all? That's all us.
 

log in or register to remove this ad






FormerLurker

Adventurer
Then why don't they stick with the current license?
Probably this:
Not many 3PP(probably none) are making movies or video games. The compromise is to give those to WotC and they leave the 3PP who are making print, PDF, and social media content alone to continue on making content as per OGL 1.0a. VTT is the touchy one. We have 3PP for that and WotC wants it for their own.
The old OGL lets people theoretically make D&D content that isn't just PDFs and WotC wants to limit that and crack down on non-PDFs.

A OGL 2.0 that is functionally identical to the OGL 1.0a but limited to PDFs is an example of a compromise, letting 3PP continue doing what they're doing but preventing video game companies and the like from making D&D video games and using too much D&D IP for non-D&D RPG products.
 

mamba

Legend
Then goodbye. There's nothing more you need to say and there's no point in you engaging in the topic anymore.
I can keep repeating it…

Also, maybe you misunderstood, I was talking about 1.1/2.0. That part I do not budge on, the conditions I am slightly flexible on
 

Yaarel

🇮🇱He-Mage
The original OGL 1.0a in itself, inherently empowers an inclusive environment, by empowering minority groups to speak their voices and create their own gaming content.

Hasbro-WotC effectively disempowers this inclusive gaming community.

There are very many gaming products by and mainly for minority groups. (I cant say for sure which ones have the OGL 1.0a license in them, but I assume most do.)

The original OGL 1.0a protects all of these minority voices that sign on to it.

Hasbro-WotC seeks to make the gaming community less inclusive and more responsive to profit-seeking shareholders.
 


Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top