• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Scribe

Legend

I want more details about this.

 


Reynard

Legend
Supporter

I want more details about this.
Wait -- they were given permission to speak their minds, and this person makes that public, but they aren't going to reveal the email.

Lol.
 

Morrus

Well, that was fun
Staff member
Ok bye.

I am actively starting to want 1.0 to be revoked at this point cause I am sick of comments like this.
This is not a charitable view. People are hurting because a large corporation is doing something which actively harms them. I, myself, am worried for my mortgage, and those of the people who depend on me. Maybe let us vent a little, eh? If it bothers you, don't read it, but our livelihoods are at stake here, and your mild inconvenience at being bothered by seeing other peoples' suffering isn't a priority. There are plenty of other threads you can read.
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
Guys can we not call people who disagree with us 'shills'? WotC produces D&D, a game which we all love or at least tolerate enough to comment endlessly about it. Some people do not care about the OGL (or do not consider it a deal breaker) and just want to have their game. Some people want some new shiny toys on the horizon, Planescape, Phandelver campaign, sweet digital pixels of collectability. No need to dismiss their arguments with a pejorative label.

That said, the D&D Shorts video is not filling me with joy, but it is giving me small satisfaction that Psionics are being withheld because some people don't like it. Not because it can't meet the 70% approval threshold.
It’s definitely because of the approval threshold. That’s the one thing in the surveys WotC actually cares about.
 


I'm not so sure.

If additional new derivative material cannot be created out of an authorized OGL1.0a licensed work, that work is not actually an authorized 1.0a license, it is functioning under some other agreement, but it not 1.0a. The license allows new derivative material to happen.

If WotC intends to say that there are authorized licenses of 1.0a out there which NOW do not provide the right to create additional new derivative material from, as you are saying, they cannot use the 1.0a license as currently written to make that statement. They need a new license because that's not what the 1.0a says happens with an authorized license, which WotC is still saying the old, already released products are going to remain.

To do what you suggest they intent to do WotC are required to revoke or unauthorized the license and then declare "we are not going to pursue copyright litigation against all previously-published material under the 1.0a license, but will we on any new material published under the revoked and or unathorized license."

What they cannot say is "this is an authorized product under the 1.0a" and say "but you can't use it to make additional new derivative material" because those two statements are logically in opposition.

joe b.

Maybe not everyone is a lawyer or logician or the like. And so the statement in their last announcement can easily be understood.
I think communicating in clear ways is better than speaking in legalese on dndbeyond. On friday we will see the legalese version of it. Which looks like a good timeframe.
 

All their surveys are scams. Literally no one reads the survey responses. Even if someone asks for the survey responses, they're not provided.

This survey is specifically meant to channel and focus the conversation to get it off forums, Twitter, Reddit, etc. It's literally the proper channels thing I mentioned up thread.

Kyle is 6 months on the job and has nothing to do with it but is the scapegoat of choice.

It's all down to Chris Cao.

This whole OGL thing is part of a bigger, nastier initiative.

Stay tuned.

Yeah. Sounds legit. Lets wait and see.
 

Xohar17

Explorer
This is the bare minimum I'm willing to accept from there. If they want to move forward alone without all the creators, they can do so. At least everything that was published in the past is not nuked out of existence.

But the problem is that trust has been broken. If they can change the OGL now, they can change it five years down the road. Who will want to put his/her eggs in their basket again?
No one with half a brain.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top