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.

​

 

[Nikosandros]

I don’t disagree. I’m pointing out publishers do it anyway, and there seem to be no consequences for it.

I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.

 

[Reynard]

I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.

It's not that WotC should care. This behavior was an act against other publishers and the spirit of Open Gaming.

 

[kenada]

I think that several publishers have played a bit fast and loose with the OGL. Until today, it seemed that WotC didn't really care, but I wonder if this would now make their position (the publishers') more legally precarious.

I’ve been wondering the same thing. If a publisher uses OGC but gives nothing back, are they even a Contributor, and what are the implications of that (e.g., should WotC actually try to revoke the OGL 1.0a)?

 

[mamba]

Again

"Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes
and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement
over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor"

If I create a setting, there is no new mechanic, if I create an adventure, there is no new mechanic, if I create a monster, there is no new mechanic, you get the picture...

 

[mamba]

Read the definition of Open Game Content again. OGC is mechanics plus whatever else is designated as OGC.

my point exactly, what I designate as OGC

 

[kenada]

my point exactly, what I designate as OGC

Plus what you designate as OGC. The definition of OGC provided in section 2 is mechanics plus whatever you designate.

 

[Simplicity]

Yes but the fact that they have to say and anything you identify... Should be enough to indicate that there are things which you don't identify that still become OGC. (Pretty much everything but PI).

 

[mamba]

Yes but the fact that they have to say and anything you identify... Should be enough to indicate that there are things which you don't identify that still become OGC. (Pretty much everything but PI).

I take that more to mean the mechanics that already are OGC, as I wrote a few posts up, most content, i.e. settings, adventures, monster manuals, etc. does not actually add new mechanics (or arguably ties them to the PI)

 

[kenada]

"Open Game Content means the game mechanic and includes the methods, procedures, processes
and routines to the extent such content does not embody the Product Identity and is an enhancement
over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content by the Contributor"

If I create a setting, there is no new mechanic, if I create an adventure, there is no new mechanic, if I create a monster, there is no new mechanic, you get the picture...

A monster stat block is what you use the to play the game. It’s obviously mechanics. Any new traps in an adventure? Treasures? NPC stats? Those are made of mechanics too. If there is non-mechanical stuff you want to protect, that is what PI declarations are for. Paizo is a good model for how to do this.

 

[éxypnos]

again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it. If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.

One can always find a person to say something stupid. If they go forward with such bad advice WotC will be creamated and buried in Federal court