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.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

LinkedIn isn't "your socials", and it's not appropriate to claim it is.

This guy is an extremely senior guy who, if he's the same as previous EPs of D&D, is the primary day-to-day decision-maker re: D&D.

If I was in a position as senior as his and publicly posting my name, I'd absolutely expect people to look up my work history. You'll note I didn't link to his Twitter, instagram or the like.

The fact that it was in a post from their official communication channel wasn't enough?

And did it actually matter? Whether it's a person or the dog from MoviePass, the message is the same (and terrible).

Did you not read his role?

He's not a lackey.

He's a primary decision-maker. He's why it's like this, and the fact that they've chosen him to run D&D, tells us what they want from D&D.

 

[Micah Sweet]

In the name of factual reporting, they don't say that.

They fail to address this point, and so we assume they will try to de-authorize. But nowhere in these statements are there words to the effect of, "You will not be able to publish new material under previous versions of the OGL."

Admittedly, failure to address it is failure to address the elephant in the room, but it doesn't actually inform you of the disposition of the elephant.

They have repeatably failed to address the most important point in this debacle. I don't see any other way of reading it other than that they are not going to budge on de-auth.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

In the name of factual reporting, they don't say that.

They fail to address this point, and so we assume they will try to de-authorize. But nowhere in these statements are there words to the effect of, "You will not be able to publish new material under previous versions of the OGL."

Admittedly, failure to address it is failure to address the elephant in the room, but it doesn't actually inform you of the disposition of the elephant.

I mean, they used published in the past tense, so I don't think it's quite as open as you're suggesting.

It would be bizarre and bad English to use "published" rather than "publish" in that context if the OGL 1.0a was ongoing.

 

[Scribe]

I hope users of the hellsite are at least telling this guy (on his brand new account) that the 1.0 OGL must remain untouched, forever, and they need to commit to it.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

I'll never understand people riding to the rescue of rapacious corporations. Give them the benefit of the doubt! Don't talk about the people who agree (and are paid) to be their spokespeople! Be grateful for what they deign to give you!

WotC isn't paying you to do this. Stop being their unpaid comms interns and crisis managers.

 

[Dausuul]

Waiting for all the angry people who nothing will ever be good enough for them to arrive.

One thing would be good enough for me: No deauthorization of the 1.0a OGL.

That's what I want and it's all I want. I don't need them to release 1D&D under the original OGL, and I don't care what license they do release it under (if any). If they want to put out a license that demands your firstborn child, that's fine with me. I doubt they'll get anyone to sign it, but that's not my problem.

But the original OGL was meant to be valid forever, and Wizards has reaffirmed that commitment, in writing, for twenty years. People signed onto the OGL (which involves giving up significant rights) on the basis of that commitment. Furthermore, it is a promise to the community that no boneheaded move by D&D's corporate owner can ever kill the game. Someone can always pick up the torch.

Wizards has already done a tremendous amount of damage simply by suggesting they plan to renege on that. Ideally they would release a new version of the OGL that makes it explicitly irrevocable, but I don't expect that. All I ask is a public statement that the 1.0a OGL will remain fully authorized and valid for the 3E and 5E SRDs.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

If the existing work is unaffected, the license is still valid, and you can still publish under it.

 

[Dustin_00]

Coming this Friday, FRIDAY, Friday (at close of business to make fans and lawyers work through the weekend) it's another Wizard's announcement!

They're so proud of their updates, they can't wait to lob it out there and head off to Starbucks.

 

[overgeeked]

I'll never understand people riding to the rescue of rapacious corporations. Give them the benefit of the doubt! Don't talk about the people who agree (and are paid) to be their spokespeople! Be grateful for what they deign to give you!

WotC isn't paying you to do this. Stop being their unpaid comms interns and crisis managers.

Parasocial relationships are a hell of a drug.

 

[mamba]

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

Yes, I did say he was not lying. These are not two mutually contradictory statements, they can revoke 1.0a (not mentioned but obviously still true, if it weren’t that certainly would have been included…) and leave all 1.0a content unaffected by this.

So what is the lie? If you want to see not mentioning revoking as a lie by omission, you must assume we have no memory. We all know that this is what we are doing, and will continue to do so until they say otherwise. I hardly see this as an omission in the ‘this is a lie’ sense because we all know it already. He is just not repeating everything WotC said in the last two weeks concerning the OGL.

If you want to consider that a lie, ok, I guess I am more charitable than to call it that