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 not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.

As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the licence could be revoked.

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

​

 

[Ondath]

of the time is the important part... in the lawyer thread and else where I have been told (and no I didn't read them or feel that if I did read them it would help) that the language has changed as of V3 on 2007 to close this. So YES in 2000 it was based on something, that has since been fixed but WotC never changed/fixed the hole.

Wouldn't WotC being able to deauthorise an old license be a problem precisely for this? So the GNU foundation could suddenly release a new version of the GNU license that affects software licensed under GNU 1.0 or GNU 2.0, say in a way that makes these open source software suddenly a walled garden? So the current versions of the open source licenses (whose issues were fixed in 2007) could suddenly find themselves forever in the danger of being modified and closed off one day.

 

[Sonny]

Hey look - this account still works!


<waves to all>

Can you confirm that this was your reaction to reading the OGL 1.1 leaks? Sources that I just made up tell me it's exactly what happened.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Wouldn't WotC being able to deauthorise an old license be a problem precisely for this? So the GNU foundation could suddenly release a new version of the GNU license that affects software licensed under GNU 1.0 or GNU 2.0, say in a way that makes these open source software suddenly a walled garden? So the current versions of the open source licenses (whose issues were fixed in 2007) could suddenly find themselves forever in the danger of being modified and closed off one day.

my limited understanding is that back in 2007 this loop hole was closed in computer licensees for open content where they now say they are irrevocable

 

[Greg Benage]

Since @RyanD is here, I wonder if the OGF would be the natural host for a legal defense fund on GoFundMe or similar. Some folks may have some dollars that were going to be spent on the new edition.

 

[Cadence]

And, to reiterate, they know it likely won’t matter what how court would rule, because no one is going to want to fight their lawyers over it anyway.

I wonder how much of a lawyer the folks angry about it could crowd-fund.

Edit: @Greg Benage made an even better post a few seconds earlier...

 

[Morrus]

And, to reiterate, they know it likely won’t matter what how court would rule, because no one is going to want to fight their lawyers over it anyway.

Paizo might if necessary. Though I doubt it would come to that.

 

[Charlaquin]

Paizo might if necessary. Though I doubt it would come to that.

Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.

 

[Ondath]

Yeah, I expect Paizo will be able to negotiate a better contract for themselves, which would be cheaper and easier than going to battle in court. I imagine that’d only happen as a last resort if they and WotC can’t come to terms.

If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.

 

[Greg Benage]

If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest.

Easy for us to say, but it's not our business, employees and investors potentially facing an existential threat. Paizo strikes me in many ways as the least likely candidate.

 

[overgeeked]

If Paizo gets a separate license that allows them to keep making Pathfinder without royalties to WotC, but still leaves smaller publishers (like EN Publishing!) to fend off on their own, people's opinion on Paizo would also change considerably to be honest. They've branded themselves as the place where OGC thrives (even making a considerable portion of their game rules available under the OGL), and if they suddenly go "eff you, I've got mine (own deal with WotC)", that branding could cause the uproar to target them as well.

I’m not keen on Paizo being seen as a leader. How did all that mess go in 2021?