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


log in or register to remove this ad


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.

Just outright cheerleading for boots on necks here.

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.

I mean, who cares? You think we're stupid enough to see WotC as some monolithic corporate person twirling their collective moustache? Of course it's business. That's the point. This kind of grim platitude excuses anything any corporation could ever do, so long as it's not an actual crime.
 

...

Yes, obviously no one has ever, literally in the history of the world, earnestly and without caveat said "let's make some bad PR." Even the ur-example of "good bad PR," the New Coke/Coke Classic debacle, has explicitly been said to be a complete accident--I believe the quote was very similar to, "None of us are anywhere near smart enough to pull off something like this intentionally."

Like...I genuinely wonder what the heck you're going for here when you refer to something so trivial. Why even mention it?

Because I think it was needed. You are making a lot of assumptions. So I thought I go the safe route.
 

EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Wait... but that's bad PR, right? They changed the whole musical to generate bad PR and make it flop.
Are they earnestly wanting bad PR?

Or are they dishonestly wanting it?

Yes, it is bad PR. They are not wanting it in earnest. They are wanting it for (very literally) fraudulent reasons.
 





grimslade

Krampus ate my d20s
Their game will not, and was not, going to disappear. If they dont care, Wizbro is not holding a gun to their head forcing them to be human shields for their bad PR.
And yet none of that was influencing you to call them 'shills'. Again I disagree with supporting WotC for their actions and words, but we don't need to be dismissive. It costs nothing and if they add no new information or argument you can safely ignore them.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top