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.

 

[Matt Thomason]

It's clear that WotC has a unilateral power to cease offering to licence the SRD to all comers on the terms of the OGL v 1.0a. What effect that would have on the rights of existing licensees to create new works using WotC's OGC, and/or to license others to use the WotC OGC that those existing licensees have used under licence, is in my view an open question, though not one about which it is impossible to reason. In the "lawyer PSA" thread, various posters with relevant expertise have canvassed some of the relevant legal arguments.

The other question worth asking here is how they plan to communicate that to someone that's just got the 3.5 SRD and OGL files off a dusty floppy disk and decides to take advantage of the license offer on them. What exactly makes the new (prospective) licensee responsible for going and checking with WotC that the offer is still open?

 

[pemerton]

The other question worth asking here is how they plan to communicate that to someone that's just got the 3.5 SRD and OGL files off a dusty floppy disk and decides to take advantage of the license offer on them. What exactly makes the new (prospective) licensee responsible for going and checking with WotC that the offer is still open?

The precise test here probably varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I'd expect some sort of notion of "reasonableness" to apply.

For instance, suppose I find an old video in box in my cupboard, and then watch it, and see a 20 year old notice that I taped in which the police offer a $10,000 reward for information about the location of such-and-such a person. Then I Google the name and discover the person is in prison (having been found and convicted some time in the intervening two decades). I can't ring the police, tell them I know where the person is, and claim that I'm entitled to the reward. The offer has obviously lapsed.

If there's dust on your floppy disc then I think the onus is on you to confirm that this offer you once heard about is still on foot.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Roger that. Knocking it off all the way out of this thread. I’ll just leave these boots here in case anyone gets tired of licking WotC’s.

Mod Note:

Smartassing a moderator while flouncing out of a thread is poor form as well. Booted for good measure, just in case.

 

[pemerton]

Perhaps, but it reads more like conflating an incomplete or in-progress legal document (frequently watermarked as such) with an executable contract where the parties weren't able to come to an agreement on the terms included in the document.

This is a significant difference.

I'm not sure that it's all that significant, to be honest. Changes get made to legal documents all the time leading up to the moment of execution. And the presence of a watermark on a document doesn't mean that parties can't execute it - though they may with to add an initialled note saying something like "the parties agree that the watermark on this document does not form part of its terms".

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

that's right... I forgot that there was a company that got so bad they had to forcible unionize to stop harassment and misconduct... and that company is now the good guys... cause they never did anything wrong.

Mod Note:

Sarcasm is not helpful in threads about controversial subjects. Let’s dial it back, please.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

I don't think they can give up on the de-authorization element without totally going back to the drawing board on their plans going forward. I say this not because of any sort of insight into how all the details would interact, but because that is the one giant, important element that they aren't going back on. The things they walked back on are apparently not that big of a deal--even royalties! The fact that they haven't gone back on this tells me it's a non-negotiable essential element of their plans.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

It is spin because what matters is the OGL 1.0a.

Any attempt to obfuscate it is deceptive.



Even if a new OGL 1.1 would come into existence, the OGL 1.0a still remains in effect.

People can use the OGL 1.0a or the OGL 1.1.

(There are still people that use the OGL 1.0 rather than the OGL 1.0a.)



An Open License cannot have a morality clause because it must be legally "without friction", functioning everywhere automatically independently of whatever is happening "upstream".

An Open License can probably be a "bully pulpit" that says something like, "We recommend boycotting any products that use this license for the purpose of hatespeech." It would lack legal force, but voice moral force. Each time the Open License gets replicated it can be required to include this recommendation.

 

[mamba]

I don't think they can give up on the de-authorization element without totally going back to the drawing board on their plans going forward. I say this not because of any sort of insight into how all the details would interact, but because that is the one giant, important element that they aren't going back on. The things they walked back on are apparently not that big of a deal--even royalties! The fact that they haven't gone back on this tells me it's a non-negotiable essential element of their plans.

Just what exactly is so important about getting rid of 1.0a though... I do not see how it interferes with their VTT plans, or their movies and games (well, maybe with some plush toys, but really, that is your worry?)

 

[MrGrenadine]

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.

The OGL 1.0a is not a license to use D&D IP. A CRPG with Armor Class, hp, Clerics, and hundreds of other things that are not owned by WotC is perfectly legal.

Or was until WotC and Hasbro decided that it wasn’t, which is exactly the problem.

 

[pemerton]

Even if a new OGL 1.1 would come into existence, the OGL 1.0a still remains in effect.

People can use the OGL 1.0a or the OGL 1.1.

If by "using the OGL v 1.0a" you mean "publishing work that might infringe WotC's copyright in the SRD, but that is licensed under the OGL v 1.0a", then I think it's better to say may well stay in effect,or perhaps that there are plausible legal arguments that it would stay in effect. Asserting with apparent certainty that it will remain in effect is in my view not warranted.