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.

 

[rknop]

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

I am still traumatized from a game of Diplomacy that I played in 1983.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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!

that's right... I forgot that there was a company that got so bad they had to forcible unionize to stop harassment and misconduct... and that company is now the good guys... cause they never did anything wrong.

 

[MockingBird]

 

[Greg Benage]

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."

Where is this language? Is it in the text of OGL 2? Fine, I don't have to agree to those terms. Is it a tweet? A blog post on D&D Beyond? Is it a Proclamation? What is the legal vehicle?

I think everyone agrees it's the easiest thing in the world to include some kind of "grandfather clause" in OGL 2. The problem is, that doesn't do what they want it to do, which is to have a least one person pay any attention to it.

Alternatively, they can simply state it. Again, no one is arguing this. They can tweet it, they can blog it, they can put it in the newspaper. The problem is, such a statement has no legal force or effect, AFAICS. There's no language in the contract everyone agreed to that allows them to change the terms of the agreement with a simple statement.

Finally, they can say, "All that may be true, but we are stating it, and if you continue to publish work under OGL 1.0a our lawyers will make it very expensive for you." And if that's the option they're going with...who in their right minds is going to enter another agreement with them? If that's what they're going with, what possible language could they put in their new agreement that would make a publisher say, "Well, I obviously don't trust you, but this agreement looks ironclad!"

Hasbro is invoking the nuclear option on OGL 1.0a. All the rest of this is the public relations equivalent of Indiana Jones hiding in the fridge, except that actually worked.

 

[Mort]

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

Seriously!

WoTC would be better off just considering any profit made by 3pps as an advertising expense, instead of "lost money."

3pps likely drive that much more business their way!

 

[overgeeked]

View attachment 273007

Exactly. Even in writing, it doesn't matter. You'll still get stabbed.

The important part here is it doesn't matter until or unless it's legally binding ink on a page.

Even then...you'll still have to be able to afford the lawyers to fight the case.

 

[Reynard]

ugh, I like their proposal better than that

Why? They aren't required to release a new SRD, and if they do they can release it under whatever constraints they like.

But they already released other material under a perpetual license. They can't take it back. I mean, they can assert they can and try, but moving goal posts and redefining terms 20+ years later doesn't change the facts.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I am still traumatized from a game of Diplomacy that I played in 1983.

The Game of Thrones board game is pretty awful for this too lol.

 

[Staffan]

Exactly. Even in writing, it doesn't matter. You'll still get stabbed.

Or mass drivered, if you're a Narn.

 

[TheSword]

Yes, they could do that indirect approach. But that would be unlikely to go well for them.

So they could then be forced to sue right?