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.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

YOU. ARE. NOT. A. PUBLIC. FIGURE. THIS. IS. A. FALSE. EQUIVALENCY.

Mod Note:

That’s a pretty rude way of making your point. This seems to be a pattern with you. You’re done in this thread.

 

[Reynard]

I really want to know what some people think is in the SRD that Disney would have to use the OGL to create a fantasy movie or show with in order to compete with WotC/Hasbro stuff.

 

[Minigiant]

Do you know how many 3PP flops there have been? Using 5E as a base doesn't guarantee success.

It's a shortcut to raise success.

The OGL 1.0a stunted RPG gamedesign in some ways so another Big media Corp would be "rolling dice" on picking up a 3PP for their game.

 

[pemerton]

For the master's tools will never dismantle the master's house.

Are we really comparing copyright licensing of RPG texts to race-based slavery?

 

[Mistwell]

1) Why do they need a morality clause if their IP isn't included in an OGL?
2) Do you really believe that they will hamstring themselves with this?

Their IP is included in an OGL? And maybe. Let's see. I think there is an awful lot of guessing at the motives and beliefs of the people behind this. For me, I just want to see the first draft and the survey questions to begin with. They've responded to feedback before, and I see no reason why they won't respond to it this time.

 

[mamba]

The OGL is the shortcut.

all they have to do is rewrite it and maybe add some changes of their own and then see whether WotC dares sue over copyright, kinda reversed tables from where we are now

 

[Mistwell]

My answer to this elsewhere, which I'll repeat here, is only if that morality is not policed by WotC themselves, but by some kind of elected board of 3PPs to prevent it being used to target people WotC just want out of the market and ensuring their interpretation of said morality clause fits that objective on any given day.

There may be ways to draft the clause so it takes a lot more of the decision making out of their hands and towards objective standards. I mentioned earlier the EU has a lot of contracts which reference EU law regarding hate speech, and it's not vague but pretty standardized. They could take that approach.

Also worth adding is that you really, really want to keep as many things, especially things you don't like, using the OGL rather than forced to go outside of it, because under the OGL they forfeit their fair use rights of trademarks to indicate compatibility. Once you force someone to go outside of the OGL, they can start legally using your trademarks in limited ways. So probably better not to force them out of it. Something to be said here for that old adage of "keeping your friends close but your enemies closer".

I don't see any value in that line of thought really. A bad actor will be a bad actor either way, and as NuTSR demonstrated, you can sue them outside the OGL just fine.

 

[dbolack]

I think there is an implied - 'everyone' or 'most everyone' in there for most of us.

I'm sorry. I don't follow?

 

[dbolack]

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.

If you can't use the trademark then it doesn't matter....

 

[pemerton]

I had always taken it to mean a particular instance of licensed and licensed material could have its license revoked. Not the license itself.

Just to add to this: it makes no sense to say that the WotC can unilaterally forbid anyone, ever again in the future, entering into a contract with someone else the terms of which are those set out in the OGL.

There may be some complexities around the fact that WotC asserts copyright in the written expression of those terms, but I don't think that goes to the basic point.