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]

You are absolutely gaslighting and acting in bad faith, because you've never cared before about a LinkedIn.

Enworld rules prohibit calling out someone as having a 'bad faith' argument, I even checked.

edit: and when has someone posted a linked in in responce to people being angry before? Maybe the mods should look into that.

 

[mamba]

From an ethical standpoint, most people won't distinguish a half-truth from a lie.

neither did I

 

[Ruin Explorer]

yeah, I assume you work for a company (you may own one so i may be wrong) if Your boss told you "go do this" and people were mad at your boss do you want them digging into you outside of your current job/role?

HE IS THE BOSS.

How are you not getting this? He's Executive Producer of D&D - he's only three steps down from Chris Cocks, head of Hasbro. It's Cynthia Williams, Dan Rawson, then him.

That's incredibly senior. He's not some poor lackey. Stop trying to gaslight us.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No, that's what they said in last week's announcement. Existing content remains OK, but you can't use the license going forward. The license is still de-authorized.

It’s doesn’t say that, you’re inferring that.

The license cannot be partially deauthorized. Either it is still valid, or it isn’t.

What seems more likely at this point is that they will go forward never mentioning new content under 1.0a at all, and will maybe bully platforms into not carrying new 1.0a content if they want a good relationship with wotc.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Enworld rules prohibit calling out someone as having a 'bad faith' argument, I even checked.

And they allow you to accuse people of felonies, as you've done repeatedly?

 

[rcade]

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.

It was posted because people wanted to know if he was a real person at WOTC. He is and has a high-level position over D&D, so that should help people believe he's speaking credibly on behalf of the company.

 

[mamba]

The new terms are not acceptable. Wizards is dishonest, and cannot be trusted.

The end.

so where does that leave us, you trust the 1.0a if they say they are not deauthorizing it? Doesn’t sound like it…

 

[GMforPowergamers]

HE IS THE BOSS.

How are you not getting this? He's Executive Producer of D&D - he's only three steps down from Chris Cocks, head of Hasbro. It's Cynthia Williams, Dan Rawson, then him.

That's incredibly senior. He's not some poor lackey. Stop trying to gaslight us.

I am not gass lighting, you are trying to make this personal about someone you don't even know... it is WotC not Kyle you are mad at

 

[Steel_Wind]

I have read Kyle Brink's statement. There are no surprises in it. At this point, I am convinced of WotC's fundamental commercial plan:

Their Mission Objective : to sell subscriptions to 6e and its VTT on DDB at a recurring monthly rate for DMs and players alike, ideally resulting in recurring revenues to WotC from DMs and players as any extremely successful MMO would provide ("WoW money").

THAT is the objective. To assist them in achieving that goal:

1- No Competing VTTs: they don't want a VTT that can run 6e other than their own; and

2- No Competing 5e Ruleset: Either directly or as a way to boost a VTT to provide 6e compatibility. To more broadly assist their effort in moving people to 6e, they DO NOT want to be competing with a fork in 5e, published by Paizo, Kobold Press or another party in circumstances that raises the specter of PF1 and 2008 all over again. I am not sure they can actually legally avoid this, but that is what WotC wants to avoid just the same.

That is the minimum acceptable outcome to WotC. If you read what Kyle Brink wrote, and read it with a view to forward looking de-authorization of the OGL 1.0a (bearing in mind the 5.1 SRD was released under that license and has not yet been "cloned") this is where we all are; Brink's statement is in accordance with the above.

All of the rest of the crap that WotC has backed off on is an abandonment of what amounted to grubbing down the side of the couch looking for quarters. It seemed a modest income stream, given Hasbro's size, that would not increase WotC's net revenue from D&D in an amount so as to justify this pratfall and the attendant risks it has brought to their business plan to earn Billions with a B from the D&D property.

 

[Morrus]

The license cannot be partially deauthorized. Either it is still valid, or it isn’t.

That is what I said. This is still a de-authorization.