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.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

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

Let's be 100% clear, here. Show me any open licensing by Disney that is similar. Or any other large brand.

I understand you wish to make a point, but the underlying issue is pretty simple; the existence of the OGL (and OGL+SRD) is most certainly unusual. Again, this is due to a number of factors that I've delineated in the past, and doesn't excuse Hasbro wanting to go back on the bargain. But it does explain why Hasbro doesn't want to have it.

 

[Alzrius]

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?

I suspect it would. When WotC put out the GSL, which did exactly what you're describing here, most people simply ignored it and kept using the OGL.

 

[DMZ2112]

The previous statement also said that

It absolutely did not.

The previous statement was that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a would be unaffected by OGL 1.1. That is a lie by omission, because being unlicensed by the OGL 1.1 is a form of being unaffected by the OGL 1.1.

This statement specifically says that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a will continue to be licensed under the OGL 1.0a, which is very different. I'll agree that it is still not sufficient, and certainly not binding, but it at least implies that Wizards is going to have to get extremely creative with their definition of 'authorization' in order to leave the license functional enough for Column A but not functional enough for Column B.

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 productss 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?

That was my understanding, yes. Update to OGL 1.1, or lose everything.

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."

That's not how I've read any of the discussion on the topic.

I'm not a lawyer, but all the OGL 1.0a says about authorization is that "any authorized version" of the license can be used to license open gaming content. That's it. Just about the only thing that is certain about that statement is that if the authorization is successfully removed from the OGL 1.0a, it can no longer be used to license open gaming content.

I will resist the ironic urge to use Q.E.D. here.

Again, your previous post and Morrus have illustrated to me that Wizards can try to get extremely creative with their definition of 'authorization' in order to leave the license functional enough for Column A but not functional enough for Column B, but they're dancing on an increasingly narrow wire, and I do think that alone is a cause for quiet celebration. It is progress.

 

[Jer]

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?

Yes. This is literally all I want. They can do whatever with new content but they need to not just back down on trying to revoke the OGL on existing content but somehow put themselves into a legally binding position that it cannot be revoked ever to tie the hands of future fools in the C-suite who think about doing this again.

They can do whatever they want with new content. They always could. They could choose to not OGL it and just allow third parties to use new content through DM's Guild. Great! It's the revocation on the existing SRDs that is the problem - the idea that they can do it at all is the issue.

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.

I want Hasbro to do the right thing because I would actually like to buy Hasbro products in the future. I just got a new Heroquest expansion that I pre-ordered months ago and it may be the last thing I purchase from Hasbro if they don't drop the deceptive business practices they're showing here.

 

[Staffan]

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.

 

[Charlaquin]

It‘s a trick!

They want to stop the flood of deletion of DnDBeyond-accounts!

(Because no DnDBeyond-account, no possibility to join the new-OGL-survey.)

You can always re sign up, do the survey, and immediately delete your account again after completing it. In fact, would actually send a very strong message! Seeing their numbers go back up right after a survey drops and then fall back down again, repeatedly, would make it abundantly clear that the people canceling their subscriptions are deeply invested in the OGL and want to make their voices heard on the matter, but aren’t willing to back down and won’t return until the issue is resolved to their satisfaction.

 

[Scribe]

Let's be 100% clear, here. Show me any open licensing by Disney that is similar. Or any other large brand.

I understand you wish to make a point, but the underlying issue is pretty simple; the existence of the OGL (and OGL+SRD) is most certainly unusual. Again, this is due to a number of factors that I've delineated in the past, and doesn't excuse Hasbro wanting to go back on the bargain. But it does explain why Hasbro doesn't want to have it.

As long as we are not pretending its about IP, morality, NFT's, profit off of others works, I think most are in agreement about why Wizbro doesnt want it around anymore.

 

[Dausuul]

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?

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?

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

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

I could lay out my thoughts on this, the safeguards I'd want to see against abuse of the morality clause...

But what's the point? Hasbro hasn't offered this and almost certainly won't. If they do, I'll consider it then, based on the specifics of the offer.

 

[mamba]

Well that isn’t the case at all is it. WotC could feel they are forced to litigate based on a threat to their business.

what threat to their business? They are about 100 times bigger than their competition

 

[Dausuul]

<duplicate post>