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.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I doubt it. Considering how draining this experience has been, OGL 2.0 will likely energy drain that Level Up.

 

[Dausuul]

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!

Oh, I will.

Note, however, that they are not promising to show us the new OGL draft -- only "new proposed OGL documentation." What does that mean? An FAQ? If so, they can continue to pull the dodge where they say, "Your existing content under the OGL 1.0a is fine," and avoid saying anything one way or the other about new content or deauthorization.

That's something we need to keep an eye on, and hammer home over and over.

 

[Greg Benage]

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

Where will they say that? They can't put it in the terms of OGL 1.0a. They can put it in the terms of OGL 2, but then publishers can simply ignore it? Where do they say it. Is it a tweet? They need to tell us, because then we'll know how they plan to violate their agreement.

 

[overgeeked]

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.

Exactly. Just because old content is grandfathered in has no bearing whatsoever on new content being permitted.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

"Revoked" does not mean "there is no OGL v1.0a."

Revoking a license doesn't mean that content released under it prior to revocation is no longer licensed under it.

EDIT: Moreover, the fact that we're having this debate about what the statement meant is itself an indication that the statement didn't do what it needed to do.

 

[Incenjucar]

Calvinball is in play. They would need to release some sort of backwards license that enables previous licenses under specific conditions while not requiring that enabling license to appear in the material itself, or else you'd need to burn a lot of books.

They have set up so much ridiculous nonsense.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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.

WotC believes it can be.

They need to tell us, because then we'll know how they plan to violate their agreement.

Yeah I don't think they'll do that until they do that, you know? I think they're extremely upset that they accidentally gave people this much warning.

 

[HammerMan]

I'll never understand people riding to the rescue of rapacious corporations.

I know it’s a hard concept that sometimes people agree with them

 

[HammerMan]

I think it’s called "concern trolling". A few examples have been glaringly obvious over the past week.

Wow “if I don’t like what you like you must be a troll”

 

[Greg Benage]

"Revoked" does not mean "there is no OGL v1.0a."

Revoking a license doesn't mean that content released under it prior to revocation is no longer licensed under it.

Is that right? All I can find for a legal definition is, "Revocation is an annulment or cancellation of a statement or agreement." Assuming you're a lawyer, could you clarify this for me?