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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I noticed that too.

For what it's worth, I think that a lot of people think that there's an expectation of give-and-take in this situation, where any instance of WotC walking things back should be met with a similar de-escalation of rhetoric, tension, etc. on the side of the people who are upset about what they're doing.

That belief strikes me as being ill-founded. Until and unless WotC dumps the entire idea of revoking the OGL v1.0a (which means outrightly saying "it's not revoked, it can't be revoked, we will not try to revoke it," even if their word is worth very little now) as well as outrightly stating that whatever new iteration of the OGL they put out will not have any clause allowing them to change its terms at will, then there is no compromise to be had.

Those two points are not negotiable, nor should they be.

This is an incredibly common thing with moderates on any issue.

 

[Velderan]

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.

And even when they come around to admitting a product they've released has a problem, they don't recall it and allow it to be sold anyhow.

 

[mamba]

Ultimately the compromise is OGL 1.0a stands, but 5.5e's SRD isn't under it. Instead, they'll make traditional contracts for 3PP, but leave fans making free stuff alone.

Done.

ugh, I like their proposal better than that

 

[GMforPowergamers]

And that's the tragic, fatal flaw.

"It's just business" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

it also cuts both ways... it can be used to justifi both pro and anti Wotc (or GR or Piazo or Enpublishing) posts and actions...

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

play a game or two and maybe lose all your friends...

That game is a killer

 

[Ruin Explorer]

it also cuts both ways... it can be used to justifi both pro and anti Wotc (or GR or Piazo or Enpublishing) posts and actions...

Yeah, when they do something BAD it can be lol.

But those others haven't done anything bad lately. Paizo has been yelled at for stuff in the past, we can't pretend it hasn't been. It's just been stuff which was a tiny joke compared to this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Again: "I am altering the deal, pray I do not alter it any further." Vader spoke that line to clearly indicate just how villainous he was being, that he knew exactly what he was doing and did not care that it meant violating his word and strong-arming others into obedience whenever and wherever he felt like it. WotC is doing exactly the same thing, they're just dressing it up in nicer terms and trying to backpedal.

They are explicitly, specifically, and intentionally taking a license which was, by literally twenty years of precedent, supposed to be irrevocable. It did not include the word "irrevocable" because open-content licenses did not have that word in them in 2000, and the OGL was not updated to include that word like other open content licenses were. They are now unilaterally giving themselves the power to "de-authorize" prior versions of their agreements--declaring they have the power to alter the deal, pray they don't alter it any further--and expecting everyone who depended on the stability, consistency, and clarity of "this is a forever license" to simply roll over and accept that.

For God's sake, if the Federal government declared that they were rescinding the Bill of Rights and replacing it with a new one that didn't protect freedom of religious expression nor forbid religious qualifications, would you accept it because it was "generous" despite not being "as generous as before"? And I am genuinely going to be very upset if you say "yes."

Rescinding guaranteed and implicitly irrevocable terms is a cause for opposition. Doesn't matter if it's something much smaller than freedom of expression.

 

[mamba]

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.

how generous it is remains to be seen, if it is not perpetual and irrevocable, then it is not worth discussing

 

[Jer]

But with the current OGL, nobody can use Wizards IP under the OGL. Using WOTC IP requires a different agreement (currently, the agreement to publish on DMsGuild).

Wizards is suggesting that things that use common gaming terms like used in their SRDs are their IP that they need to protect.

That's the gist of them making claims that they need to retract the OGL in order to "protect" themselves from bad actors using "their IP". That if someone talks about making a Reflex save or a Strength check or casting Magic Missile, then that's making a tie to Dungeons and Dragons and so they need to put out a new OGL to protect from that.

At least that's how I read it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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?

that sounds good to me.