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.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

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".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[Greg Benage]

Instead, the community could insist the replacement to the 1.0a OGL continues to protect those publisher's livelihoods or makes it even easier for them to make money.

You continue to struggle with a really basic logic error. If Wizards can violate the terms of its current agreement at will, why should anyone care about the terms of the next agreement they're offering?

 

[mamba]

WotC is going to win that fight.

because clearly they have been this far, that is why we conceded a lot and they did not budge

 

[Maxperson]

The relevant general principles are:

* A gratuitously-made offer, whether made to a particular individual on a particular occasion or a standing offer to all the world (a la Carlill vs Carbolic Smoke Ball), can be withdrawn at any time;​

​

* An offer that is made pursuant to a binding contractual obligation cannot be withdrawn at will.​

WotC's offer to license part of its 5e SRD (ie all the parts that it has labelled OGC) pursuant to the OGL is a gratuitous offer. WotC can withdraw it at any time. It seems clear to me that they intend to do that, at least as per all their recent statements.

If X is a licensee of WotC pursuant to the OGL, then X is contractually bound to offer to license its OGC to all comers. So X is not in the same situation as WotC is, as X is not making a gratuitous offer.

I can't give legal advice to you or Expeditious Retreat Press, for a variety of reasons the most obvious of which is that I'm not licensed to do so either in my jurisdiction or in yours.

I thought in other threads that you were arguing that the OGL 1.0a might constitute a contract since there is an offer, acceptance and consideration flowed both ways. I haven't been following all threads closely(there are just too many at this point), so I haven't seen what was said to change your stance there and I'm curious to hear it.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That's the issue. The unprecedented level of success they're currently enjoying is simply not good enough for them.

Right, we're literally here because D&D has made so much money that Hasbro noticed they became a consequential part of their bottom line. If this was still 2014 levels of business we almost certainly wouldn't be talking about this right now.

 

[Alzrius]

THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT.

I believe Paizo has already said that they're prepared to do exactly that. They haven't done so only because (according to what I've been told by an attorney here on these boards), they can't proactively file a claim in that regard; they need to wait for WotC to try and take legal action to back up their claims of revoking the OGL, at which point Paizo can file suit.

Posturing about the OGL won't stop WotC yanking it.

Actually, the threat of potential litigation could very well cause them to hesitate. Just because they can afford a lawsuit doesn't mean that they want one.

Gee... it seems like WotC is thinking of more ways to try and help those publishers' livelihoods than the community.

That assumption is incorrect. If WotC wanted to try and help the livelihoods of other publishers, they would simply abandon their legally-unsound claims of being able to revoke the OGL.

 

[jgbrowning]

You continue to struggle with a really basic logic error. If Wizards can violate the terms of its current agreement at will, why should anyone care about the terms of the next agreement they're offering?

Because you know, advertising, and stuff.

joe b.

 

[reelo]

Would something like keeping the old SRD in an unrevokeable OGL and keeping the new SRD for OneD&D behind a closed wall work for most people?

Absolutely! This would calm down >95% of opposition from the OSR side, at least.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But they don't have to live with it. They have the money and resources to remove it.

Cynicism does not equal truth. Your opinion is just that.

 

[TheSword]

God, can you imagine the gall?

The absolute entitlement of the community?

I mean, they got told you can publish under the OGL forever and it won't go away. They may change the terms at any time but the you can publish under older iterations if you so wish. Then, the megacorporation decided to not honor their word, assurances of which they repeatedly gave in their own documentation well into 2021.

Yeah, I can't believe how unreasonable the community is being about all of this .

Sarcasm aside, if your scenario plays out, so what?

With ORC and like, a million other games to choose from both sides taking their ball and going away would be fine by me. Sometimes the only way to win is to not play.

The problem is that the architects of the deal tried to bind the hands of the future leadership of WotC with a deal that on the face of it doesn’t seem very equitable. Paizo - the biggest beneficiary - certainly wasn’t assisting WotC and I don’t believe 5e does now - with the exception of maybe selling an adventure path or two maybe! It certainly won’t help with DDB sales which they see as the future.

Knowingly entering a lopsided deal and then being amazed when the side that gets the sticky end of the stick tries to get out of the deal seems like a bit of naivety to me.

 

[FormerLurker]

You continue to struggle with a really basic logic error. If Wizards can violate the terms of its current agreement at will, why should anyone care about the terms of the next agreement they're offering?

Gee, it's almost like the community should negotiate to force WotC to make the next license even more irrevocable and unalterable. include the word "perpetual" and such.
We can look forward or we can look backwards. I know which is more productive....