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.

 

[rcade]

That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized.

My concern is that to Hasbro/WOTC "always be licensed" does not mean "always be licensable."

 

[Zaukrie]

They really are not prepared for how this is going. At all. I think they misunderstood the emotional nature of this, compared to, say, how employees are treated by many companies. I think they could actually be in trouble here
The real money is in movies and TV and their own books and eventual VTT. Going after everyone else that was supporting that is really stupid.

 

[Scribe]

No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.

They can clearly say 'your published content is fine' and then revoke the license anyway and not act upon that revocation.

The issue is, after OGL 2.0 drops, can I go make a new Level Up?

 

[lkj]

This is a huge step in the right direction. No, they haven't said that they'll take de-authorization off the table. But they have said that it's an iterative process, and that they're going to solicit feedback. That means that taking de-authorization off the table is still on the table. For now, that's enough for me. Apologizing up front was a good move. I won't re-up my subscription till I see what's going to happen. But now I'm willing to see what they do. Obviously, what I need might be different than what a publisher needs. So we'll see how it goes

AD

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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.

I don't understand people that think, that everything big corporations do is screwing you over to get your money.

I guess the truth is in the middle.

They try to get money by producing something you like. And you actually get what you like bevause someone has the interest of actually inventing those...

Here in Germany we have seen the difference between capitalizm and communism. Guess where people got more of the things they wanted...

I for my part hate what WotC are doing. But I am grateful that D&D is thriving because for the last 10 years, WotC have done a quite good job as stewards of the game.
I hope this all settles down with a good, irrevocable OGL 1.2 or 2.1 or whatever that makes it a safe haven again.

 

[GreyLord]

It is revoked (well, attempted revocation, because I believe it can't be) because you can't continue to publish new material with it.

I don't believe it is revoked currently. The new OGL has not come out. An actual draft (this time) will come out for people to read. A survey will also be released.

DEPENDING on what happens in regards to the survey, THEN I think we can see if they keep the wording as it is, keep the same stance, or actually do what people are asking for in this thread (or the majority are asking for).

It sounds as if they are willing to listen, but they have a format that they have designed so that people can communicate with them (rather than a wild chaotic storm of various ways to try to get the message to them). This will give them numbers and percentages of who actually wants what.

The more that state something, the more likely they will probably take it into consideration. IF EVERYONE says (or even the precentages I am seeing in this thread) something to the effect of putting irrevocable into a 1.0b or something to that effect, that will be an incredibly effective way to communicate it to those in charge and also give those taking this information ammunition regarding this to show to those above them what exactly the community is wanting.

Don't want it revoked or the wording utilized, tell people to read the OGL draft when it is released and TAKE the survey!

 

[jgbrowning]

No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.

Yep. All of the 1.0a license is in effect or none of it is. There is no middle ground.

joe b.

 

[Maxperson]

not disagreeing with this at all, but to me a plain reading of the release does not hint at the distinction you were making

Sure. That's why I specifically said "could." WotC is not above a bit of word twisting to be technically telling the truth while hiding their true intentions. We will know or at least have a good idea once we see the actual language of the new OGL.

 

[Greg Benage]

They can clearly say 'your published content is fine' and then revoke the license anyway and not act upon that revocation.

Yes. They have to revoke the license. So when the statement says, "That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a," the statement is either in error or deceitful.

 

[Reynard]

My Dearest Martha,

It is 2 weeks after Christmas and it is like a whole new, terrible world. Gone are the gifts, the football games, the shared toasts. Now we are back in the trenches, killing one another again. I truly thought that peace would last, but here we are.

Private Reynard, 3rd Division, Edition War 3.