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.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

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".

Ryan Dancey -- Hasbro Cannot Deauthorize OGL

I reached out to the architect of the original Open Gaming License, former VP of Wizard of the Coast, Ryan Dancey, and asked his opinion about the current plan by WotC to 'deauthorize' the current OGL in favour of a new one. He responded as follows: Yeah my public opinion is that Hasbro does...

www.enworld.org

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.

 

[ThrorII]

I honestly don't know what their position is at this point, which seems like a problem.



That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about the specific language or terms of their new license?

It is the previous line, implying the OGL 1.0a will be good for what you HAVE ALREADY PUBLISHED, but not for future (new) content.

 

[Maxperson]

How does one kill what is alraedy dead?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

How would it ban those things? Who decides what is offensive? I certainly don't trust WotC in that role.

I have been thinking about this... actually the courts would get to NOT WotC.

See if you write a book and it's full of wwhat WotC says is hate speech, they will send a C&D and if you don't they will sue you.

Then there will be a hearing and the publisher will say "We followed the new rules" and WotC will argue "You forfit the OGL protections when you put ______ in print" and the judge (or jury but I think a judge) gets to decide if they are protected by it or not...

 

[Vaalingrade]

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.

Let's not forget things spreading like wildfire... in the department that doesn't need to know and no one there telling ANYONE in the one that does, even after they beg to get on the distro. Then they get mad that report doesn't include the information they never provided.

 

[Maxperson]

There's not really any question of which branch of the pizza tree is best thought. American pizza is good, but Pizza Napolitana is the best food in the world!

Wait! There's other pizza? First you steal our football, and now our pizza?!

 

[Reynard]

I have been thinking about this... actually the courts would get to NOT WotC.

See if you write a book and it's full of wwhat WotC says is hate speech, they will send a C&D and if you don't they will sue you.

Then there will be a hearing and the publisher will say "We followed the new rules" and WotC will argue "You forfit the OGL protections when you put ______ in print" and the judge (or jury but I think a judge) gets to decide if they are protected by it or not...

Probably not. If the license says WotC can end your license for posting things that go against their policies, I doubt you would have much recourse. You knowingly signed it, agreeing to such broad terms.

 

[FormerLurker]

1) They want to keep it that way because

2) Look who stepped up and is the only one big enough to get prepped to lock horns legally.

They're the Snow White, sent to the forest by the Queen because she can't risk her becoming Fairest of Them All.

But they didn't lock horns. Paizo chose not to fight and to go off and make ORC rather than actually engaging.

Pathfinder isn't competition for D&D the RPG any more, let alone D&D the brand. Which is growing in leaps and bounds. Paizo is beneath the notice of WotC.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

But WotC is interested in budging.
They dropped the ownership clause, royalties, declaring income, and so much more. They've dropped almost everything. And the other side has dropped nothing and only added more demands.

 

[Scribe]

Pathfinder isn't competition for D&D the RPG any more, let alone D&D the brand. Which is growing in leaps and bounds. Paizo is beneath the notice of WotC.

If Paizo is, literally everyone is, so whats the end game, why is it that 1.0 OGL is seen as some existential threat?

 

[Minigiant]

Let's not forget things spreading like wildfire... in the department that doesn't need to know and no one there telling ANYONE in the one that does, even after they beg to get on the distro. Then they get mad that report doesn't include the information they never provided.

There's an issue in gound level Operations. HR knows it. Purchasing knows it. The COO or Regionial VP of Operations? They know in about a month. Then an emial to Every comes.