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.

 

[TrainedMunkee]

Probably this:

The old OGL lets people theoretically make D&D content that isn't just PDFs and WotC wants to limit that and crack down on non-PDFs.

A OGL 2.0 that is functionally identical to the OGL 1.0a but limited to PDFs is an example of a compromise, letting 3PP continue doing what they're doing but preventing video game companies and the like from making D&D video games and using too much D&D IP for non-D&D RPG products.

An OGL doesn't affect this and wouldn't going forward. I am not a lawyer, well perhaps a rules lawyer, but I am pretty sure you can't keep game companies or movie producers from using open content like myths and fairy tales for instance. You definitely can't keep folks from rolling a d20 for a random result. There is a whole thread here on this subject. Many much smarter than I have weighed in on this.

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I don't think I've ever seen a video go through the trouble of showing the OGL 1.0a, defining what content of theirs was OGC and what was not, etc. In short, while video content may could do that if needed, I don't think any today do so.

 

[Composer99]

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

This is false.

Paizo has said that they will defend the irrevocability of the OGL, in court if necessary.

 

[FrogReaver]

There are obviously better arguments available.

I've not seen any. I'm open to hearing one.

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.

It is defined in section 8 as definable by the content creators (and also that it must be clearly indicated).

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They have made a statement that they are prepared to defend the OGL 1.0a in court if necessary. Which is not a small thing as a lawsuit would destroy the smaller companies.

Not only smaller... I don't (and I assume no one here) has access to there books... BUT I assume they are orders of magnitude less then WotC. As such they MIGHT be saying "we will go out of business and go broke on principle"

I am not the biggest fan of Piazo, and I am not the biggest hater of revoking the OGL... but GOD I respect throwing the POSSIBILITY of losing everything for something you think is right.

 

[FormerLurker]

Because the only thing that actually matters in all of this is that the OGL 1.0a remains untouched and preferably updated to make clear it is forever. If that is true it doesn't matter what OGL 2.0 demands. people can choose to do that to produce 6E compatible material. That's WotC's right and the right of 3PPs. But revoking or deauthorizing OGL 1.0a is NOT WotC's right and no one should compromise on that, not one inch.

And if that's your attitude nothing changes and WotC just ignores you.

Here's how compromise works. WotC doesn't give a crap about Paizo or the small 3PP publishers making stuff with the OGL. They're beneath their notice. Very likely, the reason they want the OGL 1.0a gone is so it isn't used by larger companies. The "major corporations" they speak of. I.e. brands and companies bigger than WotC.
So a compromise would be a OGL 2.0 that works exactly the same as the OGL 1.0a for PDFs and 3rd Party Publishers. Nothing changes for them. It could even include language like "irrevocable" and stuff. BUT it has the protection WotC needs to prevent other companies exploiting D&D IP if the movie and TV show are hits.

Both sides get what they want.
But that requires talking, understanding, and meeting halfway and not just making ultimatums.

 

[mamba]

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.

we added what demands? Last I checked most are demanding they simply stick to the contract they agreed to stick to, hardly a demand, more something that is usually taken for granted

 

[FormerLurker]

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

Just because Paizo is the biggest fish we as TTRPG fans can see that challenges D&D doesn't mean they're the biggest fish WotC sees challenging D&D. They have a very different perspective.

 

[Minigiant]

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

A LOT of youtubers thought WOTC was out for their money. Either by bad reading of 1.1 or to drive views by subscribers.

I've C&P "You are covered by Fan Content Policy not the OGL" in so many comment sections.

 

[Yaarel]

I don't think I've ever seen a video go through the trouble of showing the OGL 1.0a, defining what content of theirs was OGC and what was not, etc. In short, while video content may could do that if needed, I don't think any today do so.

So far, these "fans" have been moreorless "tolerated" as part of a Fan Policy.

However.

Hasbro-WotC is in process to do something big and anti-OGL in order to dominate the digital environment of D&D and all RPG gaming generally.

What Hasbo-WotC is planning, will also affect the video content creators, especially the ones like Critical Role that earn significant money.

Moreover, most livestreamers are also homebrewers who invent new settings, and sometimes new character options. Hasbro-WotC would explicitly target these monetized product creators.