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.

 

[Haplo781]

I won’t speak for other folks 10th manning this like myself. But I personally enjoy these boards, enjoy 5e, am looking forward to enjoying one D&D and manage a decent sized business with many customers so have some sympathy for the way that company decisions and customers decisions don’t always align. Not that most of the people posting here are WotC customers - in fact they seem to be the opposite.

I’m concerned that an activist mob mentality will create a divisive - antagonist approach to the OGL which will only end in tears for both parties.

I’m concerned that folks who actively want to hurt and are advocated burning WotC down are given license to spread hate in a place where I actually come to enjoy a nice read and a chat.

I’m concerned that employees just going about their business in a way that you disagree with are open to mockery, criticism and hate. Which I don’t think would have been allowed ok on this forum prior to this.

I’m concerned that some 3pp are making hasty business decisions that I believe they could come to regret in the future because they are resistant to change and unwilling to adapt their thinking.

I’m concerned that litigation could end up with WotC spinning off from 5e altogether and I like the current measured approach WotC are taking.

Essentially the forums are turning into an echo chamber where anyone who isn’t with the OGL movement is a collaborator. That’s what you mean when you say White Knighting right? We just don’t hate WotC like you do and changing the OGL hasn’t wiped out our goodwill to them and would like folks to put the brakes on before it all ends in tears.

Your concerns are silly.

 

[bostonmyk]

I do, and if WotC hadn’t offered up an alternative then I would be more supportive. But I have, and it’s fair - as an outsider looking in. In fact it’s more than fair - it’s generous. But because it isn’t as generous as before people are talking like it’s worthless which isn’t the case.

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.

It is personal to people whose business depends on it. Let's not lose sight of that.

Mike

 

[Alzrius]

some more restrictive clauses could make be healthy overall.

I emphatically disagree. The existing OGL has worked just fine for over twenty years; saying that it could be improved upon by making it more restrictive strikes me as being inherently contradictory.

 

[overgeeked]

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

Exactly. Which is why you play it anonymously on those websites.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they cave on that point, they have to cave on all of it (or so they believe). Which they absolutely should do.

Well yeah, because as their FAQ rightly pointed out, as long as people can keep using 1.0, there’s no benefit to them changing the OGL in a way that would make publishers not want to adopt it. And since 1D&D is going to be compatible with 5e, as long as new content can be made using the 5.1 SRD under OGL 1.0a, anyone will be able to clone 1D&D, which I’m sure they don’t want.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I played Diplomacy once in the late 80's and have never played it again. Lesson learned.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I won’t speak for other folks 10th manning this like myself. But I personally enjoy these boards, enjoy 5e, am looking forward to enjoying one D&D and manage a decent sized business with many customers so have some sympathy for the way that company decisions and customers decisions don’t always align. Not that most of the people posting here are WotC customers - in fact they seem to be the opposite.

I used to enjoy these boards more then I have in the last few years. It feel less welcoming and less fun and more angry and adversarial. People can't just disagree they have to be so wrong they are the enemy....

I’m concerned that an activist mob mentality will create a divisive - antagonist approach to the OGL which will only end in tears for both parties.

I wonder how many people (like me) that keep saying they do not want to see people put out of work and don't want the fees attached are being shouted down by people that say no change is acceptable

I’m concerned that folks who actively want to hurt and are advocated burning WotC down are given license to spread hate in a place where I actually come to enjoy a nice read and a chat.

yup I feel like we have become the spot to come to to trash and burn not to discuss...

I’m concerned that employees just going about their business in a way that you disagree with are open to mockery, criticism and hate. Which I don’t think would have been allowed ok on this forum prior to this.

I joined when we joked it was the 'eric's grandma's rule' that you don't say anything you wouldn't say to eric's sweet little granny.

However we now not only argue and use profanity (sometimes masked) but we openly attack anyone that isn't 100% on our side.

Om concerned that litigation could end up with WotC spinning off from 5e altogether and I like the current measured approach WotC are taking.

TBH and this is VERY unpopular here on enworld... but I WANT to see a ground up rewrite for 6e, so maybe by suggesting we be both more civil and more measured I am voteing against my own interest

Essentially the forums are turning into an echo chamber where anyone who isn’t with the OGL movement is a collaborator.

I just hope that it doesn't get worse (I wont even voice my fears here)

That’s what you mean when you say White Knighting right?

funny thing, if someone used that phrase against someone else it would be against the rules, but it is now okay to use it against anyone "on the wrong side"

We just don’t hate WotC like you do and changing the OGL hasn’t wiped out our goodwill to them and would like folks to put the brakes on before it all ends in tears.

 

[Charlaquin]

so what, that is not relevant as long as 1) nothing changes for already published material, 2) the new terms are acceptable, 3) the new license is perpetual and cannot be revoked

It does, because if they revoke 1.0a despite the fact that they have lead everyone to believe they couldn’t for the past 20 years, there will be no reason to believe they can’t or won’t just do so again with 1.1 or whatever they decide to call it. Especially while the “we can change anything about this license at any time for any reason” clause still exists.

 

[Jer]

It is personal to people whose business depends on it. Let's not lose sight of that.

It's also business to the folks whose business depends on it.

The idea that "it's not personal, it's business" is silly in this context. The publishers are angry from a business context because Wizards is trying to do something that is at best an unethical deceptive business practice and at worst something that they're legally not allowed to do in the first place but can tie small businesses up in lawsuits for years and prevent them from publishing.

That's business! It's not "let's get mad at Wizards because they're big meanies!" It's "Wizards is engaging in destructive business practices to a whole lot of publishers in the ttrpg field". This is a huge deal! And it feels like some of Wizard's defenders do not understand exactly how destructive what Wizards is proposing actually is.

 

[Haplo781]

Yeah. That's the whole point!

This is why most industries that deal with brands don't have any sort of open licensing. You don't see Disney engaged in open licenses, because they don't want to see their Princess in an X-Rated product, or Mickey Mouse advocating for bigotry.

This doesn't defend their decision to yank the rug out from underneath the feet of the people that relied on their promises; but it does explain why the aspect of control is important to licensors, and also why this type of control can't be achieved with an open license.

I can literally find hundreds of example of both of these things in like 4 seconds.