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.

 

[JDR]

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

Played it once too in the 80's. Whole afternoon wasted. Only two turns were taken. I basically sat around for a few hours listening to my friends argue and call each other names. Worst game ever...

 

[Charlaquin]

"If you don't like something, change it. If you can't change it, change your attitude." — Maya Angelou

The sad fact is that publishers who pass up the new deal because they used to have a better deal risk fading into obscurity. If this had been on the table 20 years ago folks would have bitten WotC’s hand off to publish royalty free content for D&D. Several of those publishers I’d like to continue to see 5e products for if only they’d give a little ground and accept that the privelages they have enjoyed over the last 20 years were an opportunity not a right.

Meanwhile new publishers will take up OGL 1.2 and publish under it, recognizing that getting to piggyback off WotC and sell lots of product is still a good deal even if it’s not available until the end of time. They won’t care that if they’d started 20 years they would have had a better deal because it’s all relative.

“The greatest danger in times of turbulence is not the turbulence; it is to act with yesterday’s logic” – Peter Drucker

Yes, it is only right and proper that the have-nots gradually concede more ground to the haves, and be grateful for the whatever scraps the haves deign to leave them with (until such a time as they decide to take that away too). Clearly this is a setup that will lead to good things for society.

 

[Mannahnin]

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.

Who hates WotC? I think most folks here support WotC in general, have been very happy for D&D to be successful and make billions of dollars, and have been pleasantly amazed at the rising tide of D&D in recent years. Including the vibrant third party market, which of late has been able to manage things like million dollar kickstarters! We've seen a wonderful rising tide floating all (or at least all D&D-compatible) boats.

Now WotC, on dubious grounds and in direct contravention of all their prior promises regarding the OGL up until at least November of 2021, more than twenty years, has proposed to unilaterally destroy this very successful arrangement and happy situation that gamers were enjoying. This golden age and bounty of products.

I think people, especially those who have founded businesses relying on WotC's said promises, have reasonable grounds to be upset. Even if, or especially if, they have historically supported WotC and its success. Witness Ginny Di's recent moving video. This is a woman who has done paid work hyping D&D, for WotC, and clearly loved it. And now WotC's got her questioning her career.

That being said, I don't seem to recall anyone mocking or posting hateful things here about Kyle Brincks, the executive who's signed his name to today's announcement. Would you be so kind as to link me to any such posts? I would be happy to also complain to a moderator if people have indeed violated the Eric's grandma rule toward him.

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? 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?

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.

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.

We don't know exactly what rationale they'll use. They may put a clause in the new license. They may just make it de-facto, as in, they sue people who try to publish new stuff using 1.0a but they never bother doing so with older products.

 

[jerryrice4949]

It will be interesting to see what is released on Friday however I think it will make little difference for most people on this board unless it is a complete 180 on the OGL. Would something like keeping the old SRD in an unrevokeable OGL and keeping the new SRD for OneD&D behind a closed wall work for most people?

 

[Mort]

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.

I don't know, treating staff poorly is no small thing. Then again, WoTC would likely not come out too favorably in that comparison either!

 

[mamba]

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.

but Mickey falls under PI, you do not see that with the OGL either

 

[Alzrius]

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?

If the next OGL was exactly the same, except for the clauses you cited, then it wouldn't matter because it would grant the point that you could use previous versions of the license, i.e. the OGL v1.0a.

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?

Sure, and good actors could use the old license to make things which WotC wouldn't be able to terminate based on their sole discretion, using "it's racist" as a fig leaf.

Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?

I'm sure it does, which is why it must not be de-authorized/revoked.

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

It's something more: that we don't trust WotC's discretion regarding what is and is not objectionable. More than that, giving anyone that degree of oversight runs directly counter to the entire idea of an open license.

 

[Charlaquin]

I'm far from an apologist, but I'd be willing to have a true Open License that is modifiable through some sort of agreement process to modernize it. It should be modifiable in some way, but not revokable. I'm willing to see what they come up with as long as they agree that content is ok.

I'm also pretty sure that they can pull OneDND from the OGL and still allow it for other versions, which is a tactic I could see them implementing.

The OGL is modifiable; WotC is free to modify it however they want. It’s just that you’re supposed to be able to keep using old versions of you don’t like the terms of the new version. That’s an important clause because it disincentivizes changing it in a way that would harm the licensees.

 

[Kinematics]

So, on the morality clause: An example of the problematic nature of such things is a story from just yesterday, of a streamer (very progressive/left wing) being banned from TikTok for a clip of a Twitch stream where he was explaining some details about Black Live Matters. It was banned for "hateful content". He was unbanned today. This is just to illustrate that many things that people would assume would be "OK" can be banned — and without any recourse or appeals process, according to the wording of the leaked draft.

Now, this example is content on a private platform. It would be like Morrus banning someone on these forums for posting stuff that he's indicated are against the rules. That's perfectly reasonable in and of itself. The problem is that an "Open Gaming License" is not a private platform. It is, in theory, an agreement that any publisher can make with any consumer. Giving someone moderation powers over the use of the license immediately cuts off the ability of any other publisher to make their own decisions about such matters.

If Paizo released something under the OGL, and Kobold Press made use of it to create an adventure module, this morality clause inserts Wizard of the Coast into the agreement as the sole arbitrator of what is acceptable, regardless of what the other parties felt. This, by itself, fundamentally breaks the idea of an open license.

On top of that, you have the lack of re-sharable open content, the revocation of the previous agreement, and the ability to unilaterally change the license at any time, and the entire concept of "open license" is broken in so many ways as to be completely unsalvageable.


This proposed "OGL" is essentially purely an agreement with Wizard of the Coast with respect to D&D, and in no way, shape, or form an open license. Conflating this proposed license with the original is itself deceptive and harmful.

Someone asked whether the morality clause plus irrevocability would be enough to consider it acceptable. My answer is "No", for the above reasons. The morality clause by itself breaks the fundamentals of the agreement. In fact, I very much hope the people working on the ORC don't get trapped into thinking this is a beneficial change they should consider.

 

[Scribe]

It will be interesting to see what is released on Friday however I think it will make little difference for most people on this board unless it is a complete 180 on the OGL. Would something like keeping the old SRD in an unrevokeable OGL and keeping the new SRD for OneD&D behind a closed wall work for most people?

Yeah. Nobody claimed Wizbro would forever add new development to the old OGL.