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


log in or register to remove this ad

Vaalingrade

Legend
Looking up a LinkedIn is not "cyberstalking" and it's NOT OKAY for you to call it that.

It's absolutely reasonable to look up the INTENTIONALLY PUBLIC work history of an lead employee. You choose what you put on LinkedIn. You choose to be on LinkedIn. So you're being dishonest now.
It's still pretty creepy to go after and post people's socials just because we're mad at them* and we probably shouldn't do it.

*The company that made them post something we don't like. Not even them.
 

mamba

Legend
That's why I said "lying by omission", you know what that is right?

It's when you don't mention something on purpose, to give a false impression that something is fine.
yep, I am aware, still a lie in my book. That is why the text goes ‘do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth’
 






TheSword

Legend
its' also about inertia... so many have spent the last week or so making "WotC is the worst" there main thrust, that no matter what they do they can't change that attitude...
"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude." — Maya Angelou

The sad fact is that publishers who pass up the new deal because they used to have a better deal risk fading into obscurity. If this had been on the table 20 years ago folks would have bitten WotC’s hand off to publish royalty free content for D&D. Several of those publishers I’d like to continue to see 5e products for if only they’d give a little ground and accept that the privelages they have enjoyed over the last 20 years were an opportunity not a right.

Meanwhile new publishers will take up OGL 1.2 and publish under it, recognizing that getting to piggyback off WotC and sell lots of product is still a good deal even if it’s not available until the end of time. They won’t care that if they’d started 20 years they would have had a better deal because it’s all relative.

“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic” – Peter Drucker
 

rcade

Hero
To be clear, this is guy is a videogame designer, and one with his most significant and recent experience running MMOs. Which tells you I think a ton about WotC's goals for D&D.
I went looking on Hasbro's 13-members board of directors for anyone with experience relevant to D&D or gaming.

Here's all I found: Chris Cocks was an executive at WOTC from 2016-21 before becoming Hasbro COO last February. Elizabeth Hamren is COO of Discord and a former vice president at Microsoft's Xbox consumer products division. Hope F. Cochran was the CFO of Candy Crush creator King Digital Entertainment. Blake Jorgensen was the CFO and COO of Electronic Arts.

The bio for Cocks states that he "understands how to create and nurture brands to drive fan and consumer connection across channels." Trying to kill the OGL has connected a lot of D&D fans across channels, but I wouldn't call it nurturing.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top