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.

 

[GreyLord]

The way the law is, WotC has to launch the lawsuit, in practical terms. So that doesn't really work.

I'm not so sure. If one views it as needing two parties, then it needs two parties to revoke it.

I think if one could NOT print whatever they agreed upon under the old contract (new material is questionable though once the old one is deauthorized, especially new games I'd imagine. That's probably far more shakey ground that what's already published) then they (3pp) may be able to launch a breach of contract.

 

[overgeeked]

Clearly not enough people have played Diplomacy. It's a Hasbro game, so don't go buy it. Check out these two sites: Backstabbr and PlayDiplomacy. Play a game or two and you'll learn real quick just how binding a "we promise" really is.

 

[Mort]

so if someone publishe my personal facebook and twitter with my friends and family link that is Okay?

No, but that's not what happened here. LinkedIn is an expressely public facing board that's there for people to look you up.

This is probably EXACTLY why he created a new DnDbeyond account for this purpose.

Considering his job title (and his professed love of the hobby) it would be REALLY odd if he didn't actually have a prior existing account!

 

[eyeheartawk]

Clearly not enough people have played Diplomacy. It's a Hasbro game, so don't go buy it. Check out these two sites: Backstabbr and PlayDiplomacy. Play a game or two and you'll learn real quick just how binding a "we promise" really is.

I don't play Diplomacy. I like having friends.

 

[Arilyn]

WotC has shattered trust. So even if 2.0 looks fine, it will not be irrevocable and probably not exactly open. Why should content creators trust them? WotC will have to go above and beyond. Like ORC, the license would have to be open and be given to a neutral third party in trust. This will never happen, so how can trust possibly be rebuilt?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The "reasonable" alternative they are offering is literally worse in pretty much every way than what we have now.

Tell me, why wouldn't we be upset by that?

Becuase WotC could not anticipate everything ago and some more restrictive clauses could make be healthy overall. And this alternative could be made irrevocable and allow the use of everything that was allowed under OGL 1.0a.

 

[Jer]

WotC has shattered trust. So even if 2.0 looks fine, it will not be irrevocable and probably not exactly open. Why should content creators trust them? WotC will have to go above and beyond. Like ORC, the license would have to be open and be given to a neutral third party in trust. This will never happen, so how can trust possibly be rebuilt?

Or they could just not bother! They could just say "we're not releasing new onednd content under an open license" and be done with it. That's their right and it's fine.

It's the revocation of the license that they've always represented as irrevocable that is the problem. Not the fact that they want to change the terms for new stuff that they're producing.

 

[eyeheartawk]

Becuase WotC could not anticipate everything ago and some more restrictive clauses could make be healthy overall. And this alternative could be made irrevocable and allow the use of everything that was allowed under OGL 1.0a.

Sure, they could.

But they haven't.

 

[Alzrius]

I don't see how anything could "always be licensed under OGL 1.0a" if the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized. I have understood deauthorization to be an all-or-nothing premise since the earliest moments of this discussion, and I don't see how that sword does not cut both ways.

Assuming it is legally possible, wouldn't deauthorization make it impossible to license anything under the OGL 1.0a, regardless of whether it was published in 2000 or after the release of the new closed license?

I'm trying to understand what that you're asking about in a practical context. If de-authorization means that it becomes "impossible" to license anything under the OGL v1.0a, regardless of when it was published, then...are you saying that no OGL v1.0a products can ever be sold again? That all PDF products that use the OGL v1.0a must be taken down, and all publishers who print OGL v1.0a books must cease offering them for sale and destroy their existing stock?

Because that's not my understanding. Insofar as I know, "de-authorization" has always meant "you can continue selling any products made under the OGL v1.0a prior to the date that WotC de-authorized it, but you cannot make any new OGL v1.0a products after that date."

 

[Maxperson]

Actually this is impossible... if they add the irrevocable clause it won't be OGL 1.0a anymore but at least OGL 1.0b.

So. They need to update ot now.

But they could introduce irrevocability to OGL 2.0 add something o the effect of, "You may continue to publish your print and PDF content produced under OGL 1.0 and 1.0a with no changes." Or however they have to word it so that current 3PP are taken care of.