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

Reynard

Legend
Isn't it?
WotC want's something. The community wants something. The two sides have to find some way to meet in the middle and compromise.

If one side isn't budging then things are an impasse. It's having a discussion with a brick wall. WotC will just have to ignore those people and move on, because there's nothing to be gained in engaging.
Emphasis mine.

But they don't. If WotC is not interested in budging on that point, and neither is the majority of the OGL publishing community, then they don't have to.

A judge will do it for them and I say: good. Worst case scenario it kills the uncertainty. best case scenario, WotC formally loses the right to stop people from making compatible products forever.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Scribe

Legend
Isn't it?
WotC want's something. The community wants something. The two sides have to find some way to meet in the middle and compromise.

If one side isn't budging then things are an impasse. It's having a discussion with a brick wall. WotC will just have to ignore those people and move on, because there's nothing to be gained in engaging.

There's no need for them to engage. They just need to accept that they over reached, and the OGL 1.0 with 3.5 and 5.0 SRD can remain. Untouched, thats it.

OGL 2.0, can have the OneD&D SRD, and it can be as restrictive as they want.

There, thats the bargain. They can be dicks with the OGL 2.0, just leave 1.0 alone. KThxBye.
 

Yaarel

He Mage
Sigh, more deceptive language.

Kyle Brink says:
"Your video content. Whether you are a commentator, streamer, podcaster, liveplay cast member, or other video creator on platforms like YouTube and Twitch and TikTok, you have always been covered by the Wizards Fan Content Policy. The OGL doesn’t (and won’t) touch any of this."

The point is, the Fan Content Policy is something that Hasbro-WotC can terminate at any moment. There is no protection for the video content of a commentator, streamer, podcaster, liveplay, etcetera.

When Hasbro-WotC would become litigious to try enforce a new OGL 1.1, they can and would send cease-and-desist legal notices to creators of video content.

The video content creators are under threat by Hasbro-WotC, but not by means of a new OGL, but rather by means of a capricious Fan Policy.



For example, if these video content creators instead rely on the original OGL 1.0a, and carefully avoid citing any Product Identity content (such as the D&D trademark or the mind flayer name), they can continue to create videos with impunity. A new OGL 1.1 that tries to de-authorize the original OGL would not allow such video content.

Commentators could rely on fair use of copyright, but copyright laws are murky, and Hasbro-WotC can send lawyers.
 

So, reasonably, if this is to be an actual negotiation and conversation, the community needs to ask what they're willing to accept in exchange for losing the OGL 1.0a (while also gaining the ORC). What we're willing to compromise on.
I know I;m not the main arguer... but here is what I would want

1st I want the no hate speech thing spelled out better
2nd I want the 6 months to be extended to 6-8 weeks before the 1D&D books street date hits, giving all the 3pp and even people just thinking of Kickstarter plenty of time
3rd have the date of money collection not the date of distribution matter... so if a Kickstarter runs 8 months late it can still deliver.

I would kind of like if they also kept the no NFT thing, but not a deal breaker.

I would love for all 5 (13?) previous editions allow for add on but not reprinting the core rules themselves... but I doubt we will get that.
 

Micah Sweet

Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
Yeah, while there's been some conspicuous misses (like the wording of the Hadozee gliding ability), and some massive goofs gotten through when material has not gone to UA (the Peace cleric), I can remember several times when feedback has clearly been adopted. Limiting the Fairy flight to when the PC is not wearing heavy armour, for instance, or the kender's magic pockets, or making the Squire of Solamnia feat more useful for martial rather than spellcasting characters.
Game material is quite different than the exact wording of a legal document. The two things are run through entirely different sets of people.
 



Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
As a perso who works in corp and worked in bad corp, it feels like it's 100000% the upper management being siloed away from the ground and customer base.

You get nothing amd nothing as info craaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawls to the top. Then the top gets the info, freaks out, and makes someone lower in charge of the response. Happened all throughout the Worldwide Disaster.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top