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

Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Earlier I posted about not getting why people white-knight for corporations doing dirty deeds.

Here's what I really mean, as it relates to threads like this one:

What do you think you're going to get out of telling everyone to calm down and suck it up? The only reason WotC rolled anything back was because lots of people got very mad. Whatever your instinct might be to do Secret Service dives in front of any corporate executive or policy being criticized, don't you realize that, in this case, anger had a positive impact?

And if you think this is all just pointless blather, and only D&D sales and D&D Beyond subs matter, then, again, why engage here on behalf of your corporate betters?
Mod Note:

Accusing your fellow ENWorlders of being corporate shills because they disagree with you is poor form & pretty rude to boot. Knock it off, and don’t repeat that error.
 





Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
This second response is more spin.

Hasbro-WotC knows well the gaming community requires the original OGL 1.0a going forward.

Hasbro-WotC doesnt give an F.

Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy the OGL 1.0a at any cost.

Hasbro-WotC is disrespectful of and hostile against the gaming community, and has no qualms about seeking to destroy the gaming community.

Hasbro-WotC wants a videogame market that makes more money. It doesnt care about a tabletop roleplaying hobby.

Hasbro-WotC cares about the future plans for DnDBeyond. It cares about its shareholders.

Hasbro-WotC probably suspects that other roleplay gaming businesses can probably do a better job at providing digital services than Hasbro-WotC can. Especially if the future digital world evolves from crowdsourcing digital services by the gaming community itself. Hasbro-WotC seeks to prevent the gaming community from creating its own digital products.
OK Yaarel, I disagree. And my disagreement involves no speculation about the private motives of people who work for WOTC.

I think this is a much more reasonable response. I think there are things which could be gained from this.

1) I do think the OGL should have a morality clause, and I do think NuTSR highlighted a potential weakness without one. Yes, NuTSR was not an OGL issue directly, but it highlights what can and likely will be an issue with the OGL,

2) A new license can provide a clearer and more firm and enforceable irrevocability clause.

Those are two things off the top of my head I can see as being useful changes to the existing OGL. You may disagree.
 




Remove ads

Remove ads

Top