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

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.
Did they drop revocation and deauthorization?

No? Then they haven't dropped anything. As long as they maintain that they can unilaterally break a twenty-year-old agreement, why should anyone care what they include or exclude from their next agreement?

Mind you, in all the thousands of words they've said since the first leaks, they've never once acknowledged this crucial, central question, let alone actually addressed it.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

FormerLurker

Adventurer
So whats Wizbro afraid of, in your estimation?
Larger companies and major brands starting to make D&D and RPG products and using their IP.

They don't care if smaller companies play in their sandbox. But as D&D becomes a bigger brand and a household name, with movies and a TV show, they're likely worried about other companies that are bigger than WotC playing with their toys. If the D&D TV show is a hit, they don't want Prime or Disney+ making a competing show and related game.
 







mamba

Legend
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."
I don’t think anyone does this under the OGL to begin with, so it is not so much misleading as irrelevant
 

pemerton

Legend
Because it's the best of the lot of bad arguments?
There are obviously better arguments available.

As I noted above, OGC is defined.
Yes. But the phrase "the Open Gaming Content" as it appears in section 4 is not defined. Which is what I posted. And given that the meaning of that term is crucial to understanding the legal powers and permissions conferred upon licensees, this is not a small point.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top