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.

​

 

[mamba]

Where have you gone, Paizo Publishing
Us gamers turn our worried eyes to you
Woo woo woo

pretty sure they won't say anything (publicly) before 1.1 is officially released

 

[mamba]

That's where your lawyer comes in.

figured as much Would be so nice if not everything were apparently completely up to interpretation

 

[GMforPowergamers]

pretty sure they won't say anything (publicly) before 1.1 is officially released

I wont blame them. Right now there is most likely a lot of stress on them.

 

[Morrus]

figured as much Would be so nice if not everything were apparently completely up to interpretation

Then there would be no lawyers or courts! That's literally their function.

 

[mamba]

Then there would be no lawyers or courts! That's literally their function.

I see their function more as drawing as clear a line as they can, with the remainder being resolved in court. This feels like intentionally mudding the water and doing so in a language no layman would interpret the way they prefer to pretend it should be read, so they can reap the big bucks

 

[Morrus]

I see their function more as drawing as clear a line as they can, with the remainder being resolved in court. This feels like intentionally mudding the water and doing so in a language no layman would interpret the way they prefer to pretend it should be read, so they can reap the big bucks

I don't think Ryan Dancey intentionally muddied the waters so he could reap big bucks, and this certainly doesn't make him any money. I think he sincerely intended to create an irevocable share-a-like license to preserve D&D and support the game using network externalities.

 

[mamba]

I don't think Ryan Dancey intentionally muddied the waters so he could reap big bucks, and this certainly doesn't make him any money. I think he sincerely intended to create an irevocable share-a-like license to preserve D&D and support the game using network externalities.

oh, I am not talking about him really, but someone clearly is

 

[Morrus]

oh, I am not talking about him really, but someone clearly is

Clearly writing the OGL 20 years ago to muddy the waters? I'm not sure what you're saying.

 

[mamba]

Clearly writing the OGL 20 years ago to muddy the waters? I'm not sure what you're saying.

I guess my point is that apparently no one can say for sure whether the license is in fact irrevocable, with lawyers arguing both sides even though the license was written to clearly be irrevocable. So we seem to have managed to get to the point where no matter how hard we try to make something clear, we simply cannot, not to the point where any layman must not throw the hands in the air and say 'I have no idea' and the judge can decide either way.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

So we seem to have managed to get to the point where no matter how hard we try to make something clear, we simply cannot, not to the point where any layman must not throw the hands in the air and say 'I have no idea' and the judge can decide either way.

this is why we can't just publish using fair use and 'rules can't be trade marked/copywritten' because known of this is layman.

Could dancy have written "I wizard of the cost do forever give D&D to the fans to work on no takes backs" sure... but I am also sure that wouldn't stand up in court either.