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

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Earlier I posted about not getting why people white-knight for corporations doing dirty deeds.

Here's what I really mean, as it relates to threads like this one:

What do you think you're going to get out of telling everyone to calm down and suck it up? The only reason WotC rolled anything back was because lots of people got very mad. Whatever your instinct might be to do Secret Service dives in front of any corporate executive or policy being criticized, don't you realize that, in this case, anger had a positive impact?

And if you think this is all just pointless blather, and only D&D sales and D&D Beyond subs matter, then, again, why engage here on behalf of your corporate betters?
I haven’t seen any such “white knighting”, I’ve just seen people disagreeing with eachother, and some folks being u comfortable with what they feel is harassment of individuals in place of statements to the corporate entity.

Neither is “white knight” behavior. Neither is exemplary of someone who looks up to the suits as Hasbro, or is loyal to a corporation.
All PREVIOUS content will be protected by the OGL 1.0/1.0(a) but once they roll out the new OGL 2.0 they are going to try and deauthorize the use of the 1.0/1.0(a) to prevent people from using it for all future products meaning creators will be banned from it's use once the new OGL 2.0 drops. It's like saying "we know you used macaroni noodles in your art before, and everything you made with those mac noodles are good and you can keep them, but once we give you spaghetti noodles you can no longer use the mac noodles ever again."
The closest they could come to actually doing this is to put language in 2.0 that makes part of the agreement you are making when you use it that you will never again publish under any other version of the OGL.

And even that is dicey, in terms of enforcement, as I understand it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad





Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Screen shot from DnD Shorts twitter
Oh, ok. Yeah, that checks out for the most part. I mean, obviously they aren’t looking to survey feedback for design ideas. Hell, they were outright open and explicit about that fact during the D&D Next playtest. They look first and foremost to the overall satisfaction levels, and if satisfaction is low, they look to feedback to understand why people are dissatisfied. They have zero interest in suggestions for how to improve the design. They actually said during the D&D Next playtest that the most effective way to give feedback was to say what specifically you dislike about the things you rated dissatisfied, but suggestions for how to change it weren’t really taken into consideration.

The only thing that surprises me about this “development” is that allegedly NO ONE reads the survey feedback. And frankly, that reads like illustrative hyperbole to me. In the Jeremy Crawford interviews, he explicitly cites the trends in reasoning why respondents are dissatisfied with certain elements, which he must have at least read some of the written responses to know. I mean, I guess maybe they could have some software that scans the written responses and tells them what key words and phrases are showing up regularly. But yeah, this is really not new information to me.
 


Steel_Wind

Legend
I mean, I don't think that matters. What matters is that WotC believes that -- or thinks they can prevail with that -- and nobody can challenge them on it.
Now you are talking about risk; risk varies for a number of reasons both objectively - and subjectively. What to you is a "no-brainer" (that you will not incur that risk) may be to somebody else a risk they reasonably decide to run.

At the end of the day, a publisher decides to do something -- and WotC decides whether they will go to court on it or not. The legal burden is on WotC, not the 3pp and a fair bit can turn on that. What one publisher may do, another may not, premised upon their own perceptions and assessment of risk.
 

AdmundfortGeographer

Getting lost in fantasy maps

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Now you are talking about risk; risk varies for a number of reasons both objectively - and subjectively. What to you is a "no-brainer" (that you will not incur that risk) may be to somebody else a risk they reasonably decide to run.

At the end of the day, a publisher decides to do something -- and WotC decides whether they will go to court on it or not. The legal burden is on WotC, not the 3pp and a fair bit can turn on that. What one publisher may do, another may not, premised upon their own perceptions and assessment of risk.
Well, yes. Thanks?
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top