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...

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

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.


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".


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

mamba

Legend
It does, because if they revoke 1.0a despite the fact that they have lead everyone to believe they couldn’t for the past 20 years, there will be no reason to believe they can’t or won’t just do so again with 1.1 or whatever they decide to call it.
so basically they can do nothing now because the trust is gone. Why would you trust 1.0a again

Especially while the “we can change anything about this license at any time for any reason” clause still exists.
the license being perpetual and irrevocable (which was in my conditions) makes this term impossible
 

log in or register to remove this ad



Vaalingrade

Legend
The NFTs thing is a smokescreen just like the inclusivity stuff. They know people care about these issues so they lead with them to obscure their real purpose.

Really what would wizards care if someone turned the bullying statblock into a cryptoscam?
Also, since when had basic IP law stopped Crypto Bros?

Since when has it stopped them from stealing from WotC specifically?
 

The NFTs thing is a smokescreen just like the inclusivity stuff. They know people care about these issues so they lead with them to obscure their real purpose.

Really what would wizards care if someone turned the bullying statblock into a cryptoscam?

Because they want nothing to do with it.

So. If it is a smokescreen ok. I don't judge here. I just state that. We will never know the reason. It being a smokescreen is just an assumption as it is that they are actually concerned.

I mean, I think they have reasons. I don't think anyone stood up and thought, hey lets make some bad PR.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
If true this is the real news.
I mean, if people thought survey comments actually mattered, they weren't paying attention during the Next playtest.

Data that was actually public never made a lick of difference (e.g., Warlord was actually more popular than Druid in a poll about what class people liked best.) And several of the questions asked during the Next playtest were blatant, obvious push-polling (including times where there literally wasn't the option to say you disliked something.)

WotC has never actually cared about feedback. They care about, as the snipped image says, getting a "temperature check." Detailed feedback would require significant man-hours to pore over and turn into something useful and digestible. If they can't even be bothered to draft good, productive survey questions, what on earth would get them to read complicated player feedback that requires interpretation?
 


The NFTs thing is a smokescreen just like the inclusivity stuff. They know people care about these issues so they lead with them to obscure their real purpose.

Really what would wizards care if someone turned the bullying statblock into a cryptoscam?

I think they had their reason. I don't think one of their leaders woke up and thought: hey, how do I make bad PR.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top