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.

​

 

[Akodoken]

All I can add is, support your 3PP. If you like their products, now is the perfect time to make those purchases.

 

[ronaldsf]

Good for him. If this goes to court, this is how he'll testify!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Good for him. If this goes to court, this is how he'll testify!

I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?

To provide some illumination on the purpose of the original OGL, particularly if it seems to contrast with WotC's statements now about what it was supposed to be for. I think, needless to say, he wouldn't be called by the lawyers representing WotC, but their opponent(s).

 

[Scribe]

I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?

As the rep of the company at the time the text in question was created, upon which all of this is standing.

 

[God]

I'm not sure he would be an expert on the law, and he hasn't worked for the company for what 10ish 15ish years? what would he be called for?

An expert witness testifying to the intent and context of the contract as it was originally drafted, and continues to bind successive dicebag WotC executives.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

To provide some illumination on the purpose of the original OGL, particularly if it seems to contrast with WotC's statements now about what it was supposed to be for. I think, needless to say, he wouldn't be called by the lawyers representing WotC, but their opponent(s).

As the rep of the company at the time the text in question was created, upon which all of this is standing.

An expert witness testifying to the intent and context of the contract as it was originally drafted, and continues to bind successive dicebag WotC executives.

Yeah I worked for many companies that had 1 intent then with a change of leadership that intent changed. I don't know ifa legal argument of "I know what it says, but what I meant was..." means much unless (and this comes from a lawyer on this form) it is already a not clear writing.

 

[RyanD]

Hey look - this account still works!


<waves to all>

 

[timbannock]

And it's going to be working overtime for a few days/weeks/months, quite possibly ;-P

 

[darjr]

Hey look - this account still works!


<waves to all>

Well hello there.