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.

 

[mamba]

I honestly don't know what their position is at this point, which seems like a problem.



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. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about the specific language or terms of their new license?

there was the fear that deauthorization of 1.0a meant material published under it could no longer be distributed. They are simply saying that this is not true

 

[overgeeked]

Then tell them in the Survey when it comes out. Tell all your friends to tell them in the survey when it comes out. Rather than complain and say, actually TELL them. Have OTHERS tell them.

WotC lit their own house on fire and are now asking people to fill out a survey on how best to put the fire out. Let it burn. Move on. We’ll have the ORC to use as a real open license in a few months.

 

[Alzrius]

How do they make this true without revoking or deauthorizing OGL 1.0a, which they explicitly say they are not doing?

At no point in Kyle's statement does he explicitly say that WotC is not revoking/de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a.

You say that his statement about "the Open Game Content you've published won't be affected" is a statement to that effect, but numerous other people here have said they interpret it as instead being a statement only about Open Game Content published to date, and so appears to be making a purposeful distinction as to future attempts to publish Open Game Content under the OGL v1.0a, suggesting that revocation is still a goal of WotC's.

You might find that to be overly parsimonious, pessimistic, or simply wrong, but given how WotC has acted since this entire brouhaha started, it's incumbent on them to make things as clear as possible. They've justified people being mistrusting toward them, and so there's no impetus to give them the benefit of the doubt.

 

[Riley]

You can link a WotC account with DDB now.

What’s a WOTC account? The last I had an account with them was 10+ years ago, with D&D Insider.

 

[Haplo781]

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.

"1.0a is not authorized for products published on or after June 1, 2023"

Wow that was easy

 

[Greg Benage]

At no point in Kyle's statement does he explicitly say that WotC is not revoking/de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a.

Man he explicitly says that existing content will continue to be licensed under OGL 1.0a. Existing content cannot be licensed under OGL 1.0a if there is no OGL 1.0a.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

@GMforPowergamers just seems to feel that posting an employee’s (not a celebrity or an influencer’s) CV on a public forum for the purpose of people who hate his company to pile on is a bit stalkerish.

Do you not know how LinkedIn works? The only contact info listed for him there is via LinkedIn—a very unlikely contact point for people to harass him, given how much harder it is to create and abuse fake or anonymous accounts—and Twitter. That's it. No cell numbers or email address or anything of the sort. Publically available social network contact points that are extremely easy to filter and manage.

I haven’t decided if it is stalking but it’s definitely a bit creepy and bit distasteful.

You haven't decided? Let us know when you do!

I once had a customer unhappy with a decision to ban a member of his family (for actually stalking one of my employees). That customer went onto my linkednin and made notes on every job I’d posted on there and then came into my workplace with his notes and asked me to explain the gaps - suggesting that maybe I’d been in prison or intimating worse, threatening going to the papers - the things people think they are entitled to do to people in service jobs hey? The reality was I only go on linkedin when something interesting happens to someone else so the details were wildly out of date. The customer’s behavior was deeply unpleasant and made me feel very unsafe for a while though. My executive boss was very good about it though - travelled to see me in person, banned the customer for life and offered to report to the police… but of course all suits are ?@>{^<*$ right?

This is a deeply messed up situation that I'm sorry you had to deal with. Sounds like a seriously unhinged person. But the problem you're describing is not LinkedIn, and doesn't really apply here. The EP of D&D isn't a customer-facing service job, and is a senior enough position that includes being the public face of a company doing dumb and unpopular stuff.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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.

I don't disagree with you.

Honestly? This is my position:

Doesn't matter what my opinion is. I'm not an expert, and I'm not going to take the risk. Gonna wait for someone with deeper pockets to do so. I'm going to wait and see.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

there was the fear that deauthorization of 1.0a meant material published under it could no longer be distributed. They are simply saying that this is not true

That was never a rational fear, though. I pointed that out at the time. The rational fear is/was going forwards. If they'd tried to go backwards they'd have been entering an insane legal minefield that could have done them huge financial harm.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Then tell them in the Survey when it comes out. Tell all your friends to tell them in the survey when it comes out. Rather than complain and say, actually TELL them. Have OTHERS tell them.

I don't complain...
I am indifferent, because I have seen too many complains and pipe dreams.

I just want the warring to stop and hope in the end a compromise is reached, where creators can sefely publish their 3pp books and wotc be safe to make a great OneD&D. And I want more D&D movies and I want a great VTT that is well supported and that I actually want to use, because it safes me work instead of creating extra work.