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.

​

 

[blakesha]

Reading all the debates about the legal standing of the OGL 1.0 versus the OGL 1.1 is just giving common folk mental trauma. Sorry for the all questions below, but the hobby is in chaos in 2023 now.

For simplicity, what effect will the OGL 1.1 have on projects like EN Publishing's Level Up 5e?

In simple terms is Level Up 5e dead in the water come 2024?

Or will Level Up 5e exist as an alternative set of variant rules like Paizo's Pathfinder did in the 4e era?

Those of us who already have these books are fine, but how do we bring in new Players if those people cannot purchase the Level Up 5e core rulebook in 2024?

Will Wizards of the Coast issue cease and desist to all publishers who refuse to update to OGL 1.1?

I am thinking of selling mine, if there is no guarantee that variant rules will remain legal in 2024.

They can still purchase it under OGL 1.1 if section 9s wording is taken literally. Hell Enworld Publishing can make modifications to that set of published material under OGL 1.1 and continue to sell it without having to adhere to the other terms of OGL 1.1 (like the royalty clause). Based on the terms of section 9. EWP just can't create NEW works without having to then adhere to the new terms (ie the royalty ones)

 

[catseye_yellow]

All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now

of course that the intent of the one contractual party at the time when contractual obligation has been established is relevant

 

[catseye_yellow]

double post

 

[blakesha]

of course that the intent of the one contractual party at the time when contractual obligation has been established is relevant

Absolutely agree Ryan. The irrelevant point being that WotC will argue that they can change that license / enact a new license as per the use of the word "authorised" in the terms. It infers that there was intent for there to be unauthorised version of the license.

As stated in another thread, I dont think this is great PR, and the fact it could potentially kill off a segment of the 3p content creator community is even less great, but you can understand SOME of the business logic behind the decision.

But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.

 

[humble minion]

But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.

They can, but they don't want to. It's very much a package deal for them. This is about WotC regaining control over, and reaping no-effort revenue from, the 3pp sector (as one would expect from a Hasbro executive team packed with Microsoft and Amazon alumni, abuse of market power is the first tool pulled out of the toolbox). They can certainly do that for 5.5 by creating a new licence with the sort of conditions that are being leaked about 1.1 - but unless the creation of the new licence is accompanied by revocation of the old one, it's a very risky move for them. The last thing they want to do is open the door to whoever wants create another Pathfinder, based off the 5e rulebase, licenced under OGL 1.0a. If there's a 5finder ruleset (to coin a phrase) floating around under the OGL 1.0a, then it'd be a rare 3pp publisher who voluntarily decides to adhere to all the strictures of OGL 1.1 and pay WotC a chunk of their earnings should they dare to become too successful, when they can simply go with 5finder and ... not have to do any of that. WotC have already stated that 5.5 will be back-compatible with their 5e supplements, so it logically follows that new 5e/5finder supplements will also be compatible with 5.5e, even if the publishers may not be able to explicitly refer to that fact.

Mind you, even if any of this happens it's unlikely to affect the success or failure of 5.5 very much one way or another unless one of the REALLY big dogs in the 3pp industry (Critical Role may possibly be the only people with that sort of heft) jump onboard 5finder, but WotC will be very keen to avoid the possibility anyway.

 

[S'mon]

Mind you, even if any of this happens it's unlikely to affect the success or failure of 5.5 very much one way or another

I strongly suspect that the future success of 5.5 has already been affected, to its detriment, by the fear and trepidation that WoTC have created in the 3PP community, and the better informed segment of D&D players.

 

[Reynard]

I strongly suspect that the future success of 5.5 has already been affected, to its detriment, by the fear and trepidation that WoTC have created in the 3PP community, and the better informed segment of D&D players.

It's a long time until release and gamers have short memories. Unless the big players that WotC is courting now balk, 1D&D will have strong 3PP support.

 

[Staffan]

But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.

I don't think anyone is arguing that Wizards can't release 5.5e/6e/OneD&D under a different license, or potentially no license at all. One might question the wisdom of such a move, but not that it's a thing they can do. The issue at hand is whether they can "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a when it says "perpetual" and their representatives have previously assured people that that's not a thing they can do.

 

[Alzrius]

But here is the kicker - its their license. They can choose to publish 6E under a different license (less restrictive than the GSL potentially), still hold onto the control and the monitisation that they are after, while still enable 3pp. For D&D, they can effectively kill off the OGL.

They can absolutely put a 1D&D SRD out under a more-restrictive license, or even not issue an SRD at all if they so choose. But as for whether or not they can unilaterally revoke the existing OGL v1.0a, preventing anyone from publishing new material under it, is much murkier. There's an excellent post on this, from an actual lawyer, over here.

 

[mamba]

Quick question for those a little more knowledgeable:

How the Open Gaming License ever actually been "Open". As in owned by someone NOT WotC?

not a requirement for openness…