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.

 

[FormerLurker]

Most of the time for the vast majority products you don't need to do that at all, you can produce an adventure for D&D without needing to copy anything from the SRD or rulebooks.

The majority of accessories. Traditional 3PP.
That's probably not what WotC is worried about. They're probably worried about major corporations doing D&D games using their rules for the corp's brands and IP. Competing products not compatible products.

Because, as you say, you can produce an adventure for D&D without needing to copy anything from the SRD or rulebooks, which means you don't need to use the OGL to make an adventure for D&D.

 

[eyeheartawk]

They gave us something in 2000, two years after Google was founded, before anyone shopped on Amazon, a few years after Marvel was bankrupt and when Phantom Menace was making people question if Star Wars was still good. At a time when TSR had gone under and TTRPPGs were a tiny industry. Before DriveThruRPG was a thing, when 3PP only meant physical books and everyone wasn't carrying a portable computer in their pocket capable of holding a game store's worth of books.
It was a very different time.
It seems naïve to expect those rules to apply forever regardless of how the world changes.
Regardless, it's going to change. Whining about how unfair it is doesn't help and isn't productive.
The OGL 1.0a is going to go away. That's the reality. The community can with scream that it's unfair or find a way to get something good out of the survey and make the new OGL more passable. Find the opportunity.

In a vacuum, sure.

But in the OGL it literally says perpetual and that you can use an older version of an OGL should they change it in the future.

So, in that context?

Not naive or unreasonable.

I would also argue it's productive to moan and complain, since they've already walked back some of the objectionable parts already. So you know, literal evidence to the contrary.

As to the player bases of other games, well, that remains to be seen. From the anecdotal evidence in the past week or so that may very well be changing. I doubt to D&D levels ever, but perhaps enough.

 

[Greg Benage]

It seems naïve to expect those rules to apply forever regardless of how the world changes.

That's how contracts work. That's why they're valuable--you don't have to imagine a million different future contingencies that might incline the parties to change their terms. You have the rights and obligations as defined in the contract instead.

 

[Velderan]

Green Ronin is a major player in the 3PP scene. There's ONE Fantasy Age game listed on Roll20 right now. ONE Shadow of the Demon Lord game.
"Not play" indeed.

Where do you find that info? I don't doubt it, just curious where it's located.

 

[FormerLurker]

Show me one thing they've given us that we didn't have before this all started.

THAT'S THE FREAKIN' POINT!!!!

They want to take something. We need to ask for something that we didn't have before.
But instead, everyone is just focused on what they're losing that they're not even stopping to consider what they could gain. What they could negotiate for.
So they're just going to take it and not give anything back because the community was too intractable and stubborn to actually make a deal.

 

[Alzrius]

It seems naïve to expect those rules to apply forever regardless of how the world changes.

Expecting a perpetual license to remain perpetual is in no way naïve.

The OGL 1.0a is going to go away. That's the reality.

Multiple lawyers have said that it's nowhere near as cut-and-dried as you're making it out to be.

 

[Dreamscape]

Regardless, it's going to change. Whining about how unfair it is doesn't help and isn't productive.

Nice take on publishers' reactions to their livelihood being threatened.

 

[Greg Benage]

They want to take something. We need to ask for something that we didn't have before.

I'm astonished at your eagerness to bargain away other people's contractual rights.

 

[Velderan]

They want to take something. We need to ask for something that we didn't have before.

Sure, I told them in my DDB cancellation they can make OGL 1.0a irrevocable and in exchange I'll continue to give them my money. I'm asking them for something we don't currently have and offering something they don't currently have. Win-win.

 

[FormerLurker]

So in addition to WotC taking away the OGL 1.0a, what else would you like 3PPs to give up?

That's not what I'm asking.
WotC wants to take away the OGL. The community doesn't want them to take away the OGL.

WotC is going to win that fight. So the community needs to surrender the OGL. To let WotC pull the license. But, having acknowledged that, they can ask for something else in exchange for the OGL that they didn't have before.