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]

Read what I was responding to...sigh. I'm not siding with Wizards.

Thanks

Mike

No I know - I was adding to what you were saying, not arguing with you.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

At this point I don't care about OGL 2.x at all, and neither should anyone else.

Sorry. But I think everyone else can make theor own decision.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Will someone do a GoFundMe or something and raise a few million and just go ahead and Sue WOTC first?

I would love to see the wording of a lawsuit based on no direct action... "They said they were going to" and "We have leakers showing they might" and "They give off the vibes of"

This isn't ever going to end until a court of law makes a ruling. As long as WOTC feels big $$ give them the ability to sidestep the protections in a legal contract they are going to keep at it.

becareful what you wish for... what happens if that legal ruleing comes down on the side of WotC?

Lets just get this done as well. There public statements intending to change the OGL is already enough to trigger a suit. Those effected just need to join together in a suit against WOTC and see what the courts say. You have millions of gamers who would chip in a few bucks to get this done and over with.

If we have millions of gamers willing to raise that money I guess WotC is right... the customer base has a TON of disposable income (not me) that is under monitized... maybe everyone NOT in my group can throw $30 a month and not blink...
how amny $30 bakers to get to a million you ask, lets find out... just over 33,000 but remember that's a million a month we don't need that (even though 4e was half way there) so divide by 12 and we get 2,750ish...

So I wonder if those same 3,000 (rounding up) people just said "if we sign up for your $30 a month program for 3 years will you make it irrevocable" if that would be a better use for this...

 

[overgeeked]

Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?

No. WotC cannot and should not be the arbiters of taste. Clearly they can't even keep their own products free of blatant racism, see the Hadozee, and Hasbro sells NFTs...so it's beyond hypocritical of them to say no NFTs.

The only change to the OGL should be making it explicitly permanent, non-de-authorizable, perpetual, irrevocable...whatever. Then hand it over to the same law firm doing the ORC.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Okay, please help me out here. I understand this is not a retraction --it's a blog post. If this is not a sufficient statement of intention to retract, I'd like to help defend that position, but I don't follow this reading.

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.

A license that has been "de-authorized" may still be enforced (or at least enforceable) for things published before the new one, because the license was authorized at the time, especially if they choose to word the "de-authorization" clause(s) to that effect. For example, "Starting on <date new license takes effect,> hereinafter the Effective Date, no new Work may use or employ any portion of a previously-authorized portion of this license, unless that Work was wholly published prior to the Effective Date." I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, I don't know how to write good contracts, etc., etc., etc.--consider this a loose conceptual framework. The idea being, you draw a date line in the sand: everything before the date the new so-called-Open Gaming License takes effect is frozen in amber, protected by the old license but unable to be edited or modified without switching to the new license.

That's how you de-authorize old terms without invalidating all previous agreements made using those terms.

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?

Yes. This is a major reason why so many of us oppose any conception of "de-authorization."

On the flip side of the coin, if material published in 2000 remains licensed despite deauthorization, how do you weaponize that deauthorization to refuse licensure to future material under the same license?

It would depend on exactly how it is worded, but if WotC isn't completely idiotic, there would be no such way. You won't be able to make changes or edits to past works without breaking the terms. Effectively, my expectation is, the new terms will say you are licensed under the so-called-Open Gaming License 2 (or 1.1 or whatever they're calling it now), but that license has a grandfather clause allowing people to continue using parts of the OGL 1.0a if and only if they never change anything about the work in question. Something that could be paraphrased as, "You are licensed under [so-called-]Open Gaming License 2 if your work was published before <effective date>, adhered to the terms of OGL1.0a at the time it was published, and never gets changed after <effective date.>" This creates exactly the situation described, while still forcing people to switch to the new license for anything they wish to publish or modify going forward.

The previous statement was that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a would be unaffected by OGL 1.1, and I understand why that is a nothing statement, or at least I think I do.

Correct. If anything, it tells us stuff purely by what it doesn't say: they are not interested in providing a truly irrevocable open-gaming license, this is about forcing people to switch to their new, draconian terms. "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further."

This statement specifically says that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a will continue to be licensed under the OGL 1.0a, and I don't understand how that's possible if Wizards' plans still involve deauthorization.

See above. A temporal carve-out solely for works published before (and never edited, updated, or amended after) the effective date of the new license is exactly the kind of shady move I expect WotC to make.

 

[mamba]

The house in this context is the new OGL, not the entirety of WOTC or Hasbro.

oh, I took it to be WotC

 

[Scribe]

becareful what you wish for... what happens if that legal ruleing comes down on the side of WotC?

People operate with an understanding backed up by law, instead of waiting for Wizbro to once again 'alter the deal'?

The horror.

 

[Morrus]

If 1.1 was exactly the same as 1.0, everyone would still complain, because most people on forums don't want them to succeed
They want their piece of the pie$ and they can't have it if Wotc succeeds.
Its all about money.

This “I am better than everybody on these forums” refrain is getting tired, not to mention obnoxious. Please stop it.

 

[Haplo781]

And none of them (NONE OF THEM) are licensed by Disney, or can claim a license from Disney.

Which means that if the shinola ever hits the fan from a PR perspective, Disney doesn't take the hit.

Also? Something tells me you didn't take four seconds ... it was probably in your browser history. #NOTJUDGING(JUDGING)

Wrong! It was Mickey rule 34 and racist princesses.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

YOU. ARE. NOT. A. PUBLIC. FIGURE. THIS. IS. A. FALSE. EQUIVALENCY.

we were asked to drop this please don't @ me on things I can't respond to on the actual topic