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.

 

[Jer]

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.

Worse - I'm still convinced that the folks at Hasbro/Wizards don't understand the OGL or the ttrpg publishing environment enough to to get why people are mad.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

Unfortunately we can see from more detailed posts that a lot of the "agreement" is actually based in misunderstandings, some accidental, some wishful thinking, rather than genuine agreement.

Not all of it, sure, but an awful lot of it.

 

[GreyLord]

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.

So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that nothing that WotC or Hasbro does will change your mind?

WotC has changed their wording and apologized. They are putting out the OGL draft this time for people to see. They have stated they are open for changes and putting out a survey (a way that they can actually get a more organized method of feedback) to receive that feedback. They have said they will take it seriously (analyze it).

Perhaps it is because you feel they have not explained their side of the equation well enough?

I feel this is a pretty open process that they have presented and an orderly way to get information. If you refuse to participate in the process, do you expect them to be able to hear your complaints?

 

[Grendel_Khan]

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...

Ah yes, criticism of a corporation with hurtful policies = communism.

No one here's standing in a bread line to get their next module. I give money to lots of RPG creators for products. Please pay attention to what we're actually talking about.

 

[mamba]

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.

the fear does not need to be rational for them to point out that this is not what is happening, which to me is all they did in that part.

 

[Scribe]

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

Plenty of folks dont like what I like. I dont call 4e people trolls, or 5e people trolls. Its not my fault they cannot see the inherent greatness of the 3.5/PF1 lineage.

 

[mamba]

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

ok, so what does revoked mean then? To me it means ‘there once was, but it is not available any more’

I guess you are mistaking this for the perpetual part

 

[Alzrius]

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?

I'm not a lawyer; I'll freely admit that this is my lay understanding.

That said, leaving aside that the OGL v1.0a has provisions which are explicitly stated to survive termination (which I suppose can trigger a new debate as to whether or not revocation is termination), I'm not aware of any situation in which revoking a license means that everything which was previously licensed under it is suddenly released from that license. That might very well have happened before, and I'm just not aware of it, but I don't believe that's what was implied to happen here.

 

[Scribe]

Worse - I'm still convinced that the folks at Hasbro/Wizards don't understand the OGL or the ttrpg publishing environment enough to to get why people are mad.

Given they continue to tiptoe very carefully around the 1.0 license, I think they know exactly what they are doing.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Perhaps it is because you feel they have not explained their side of the equation well enough?

I think it's more than that.

The unfortunate reality is that WotC have been dishonest and used bullying tactics repeatedly here.

It's very hard to trust someone after they've done that, isn't it?

They also have failed to explain themselves in an honest and open fashion. If they really feel they have to get rid of the OGL 1.0a, in order to do what they want (which makes a degree of logical sense), why have they danced around that so heavily? The obvious reason is that they're not being honest and transparent.

I feel this is a pretty open process that they have presented and an orderly way to get information. If you refuse to participate in the process, do you expect them to be able to hear your complaints?

This is the first time they've presented an orderly process. We've had minutes to consider.

In they presenting it, they continued to be dishonest or at least to omit the most important information about their goals. So whilst it is orderly, it does not appear to be transparent or above board. Which makes it very hard to take seriously, unfortunately.