• 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

Because of the past tense.
No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
Enworld rules prohibit calling out someone as having a 'bad faith' argument, I even checked.

Mod Note:
That is a misleading oversimplification of what I told you.

And, in that discussion, I certainly didn't give you authority to wave rules in people's faces to cow them into submission. The attempt to be junior moderator is not appreciated.




Edit: Owning my mistake - we had a discussion on "bad faith", but it was not private. It was in a thread that nobody else read. I should not have wagged my finger about it being private, and I have apologized to GMfPG for that mistake on my part.
 
Last edited:

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about the specific language or terms of their new license?
It is revoked (well, attempted revocation, because I believe it can't be) because you can't continue to publish new material with it.
 


GreyLord

Legend
They can just put irrevocable in the new license.
Maybe it ends up beeing all that changes. So yes, we don't want the old 1.0a. We at least want 1.0b with irrevocable put in.

Then tell them in the Survey when it comes out. Tell all your friends to tell them in the survey when it comes out. Rather than complain and say, actually TELL them. Have OTHERS tell them.
 

"You can keep selling new Coke that you already made, but you can't make more of it."
How do they make this true without revoking or deauthorizing OGL 1.0a, which they explicitly say they are not doing? They can say it in the new license, but I don't have to agree to the terms of that license. If OGL 1.0a still exists, where do they tell me I can't continue to publish under it?
 


Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.
This. The license is either valid or it is not.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top