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.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

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".

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...

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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

You are useing a work search website to find out about an employee of a company you are mad at and shareing that information (including contact info) with others... that is cyber stalking.
It is the first lowest level of it... but it is

It's absolutely reasonable to look up the INTENTIONALLY PUBLIC work history of an lead employee.

why? what do you need to know other then he works for the company and is putting out a work related press relase?

You choose what you put on LinkedIn. You choose to be on LinkedIn. So you're being dishonest now.

You use link in to contact with people for getting and networking between jiobs, not so random people who are mad you work for a company they are mad at can find you (and possible target you)

 

[Weiley31]

Like, you want to hear about what we thought of the Cleric in the feedback WoTC?

Continues talking about the OGL 1.0a and mentions *NOTHING about anything that was presented for the Cleric in the last playtest packet.*

 

[jhallum]

I noticed that too.

For what it's worth, I think that a lot of people think that there's an expectation of give-and-take in this situation, where any instance of WotC walking things back should be met with a similar de-escalation of rhetoric, tension, etc. on the side of the people who are upset about what they're doing.

That belief strikes me as being ill-founded. Until and unless WotC dumps the entire idea of revoking the OGL v1.0a (which means outrightly saying "it's not revoked, it can't be revoked, we will not try to revoke it," even if their word is worth very little now) as well as outrightly stating that whatever new iteration of the OGL they put out will not have any clause allowing them to change its terms at will, then there is no compromise to be had.

Those two points are not negotiable, nor should they be.

I'm far from an apologist, but I'd be willing to have a true Open License that is modifiable through some sort of agreement process to modernize it. It should be modifiable in some way, but not revokable. I'm willing to see what they come up with as long as they agree that content is ok.

I'm also pretty sure that they can pull OneDND from the OGL and still allow it for other versions, which is a tactic I could see them implementing.

 

[Zeddok]

It‘s a trick!

They want to stop the flood of deletion of DnDBeyond-accounts!

(Because no DnDBeyond-account, no possibility to join the new-OGL-survey.)

 

[mamba]

Because unless they can convince people that they're position on revocability isn't just, "We don't think we have much of a case, but we're confident we can lawfare publishers into submission," no publisher is going to sign up to accept their next offer, regardless of its language. Right?

I don’t know, I consider it a win given my three premises. Would I prefer 1.0a to stick around, sure, but I never was under the impression that this would be the end result.

If someone wants to sue WotC over the difference, they are welcome to

 

[GMforPowergamers]

PLEASE DO NOT GASLIGHT ENWORLD USERS.

I am not gaslighting... leave the guys personal history out of this. He is a representative of Hasbro and Wotc focus on them not him as a person.

 

[Haplo781]

You are useing a work search website to find out about an employee of a company you are mad at and shareing that information (including contact info) with others... that is cyber stalking.
It is the first lowest level of it... but it is

why? what do you need to know other then he works for the company and is putting out a work related press relase?

You use link in to contact with people for getting and networking between jiobs, not so random people who are mad you work for a company they are mad at can find you (and possible target you)

This sure is a take all right

 

[Weiley31]

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’

Did you maybe miss a word out because it really looked like you were saying he wasn't lying lol.

 

[mamba]

This could mean that you can do it, but it is restricted to those who pay for a DDB subscription that allows them to use it.

not the way I read it, see ‘VTT publishers’, not publishers of VTT content, which came before

 

[Riley]

I honestly say that EVERYBODY should express their displeasure over what is happening to the OGL 1.0a. IN BOTH SURVEYS.

I can’t do that without subscribing to D&D Beyond, and I’m not sharing my Google or Apple accounts with WOTC.