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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

last I checked they are doing just fine as is, when they do not keep shooting themselves in the foot at least that is


by ‘many’ you mean WotC claims it, they definitely are covered, show me what excludes them


I am taking nothing I do not already have

That's the issue. The unprecedented level of success they're currently enjoying is simply not good enough for them.

 

[mamba]

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

except that this is exactly what WotC promised. Are you saying we should not trust them? Then why negotiate with them at all

 

[Minigiant]

I feel like you are suggesting that there are no other "good RPGs" besides D&D and that claim is... suspect, at best.

That's not what I said.

Read my claim again and all the conditions to it.

 

[Dausuul]

WotC is going to remove the OGL 1.0a. That seems to be a major goal of this. Everything else is negotiable.
The Open Gaming community can get something in exchange for the 1.0a going away, negotiating for something else. Or they can posture and make analogies and forfeit any right to participate in the negotiation and WotC will decide what to give for them.

Framing this as a negotiation is somewhat misleading. We have no representatives to sit down with Wizards and hash out terms.

But setting that aside: Successful negotiation requires a willingness to walk away. For many of us, the OGL is the whole point here -- I'm not even sure what else Wizards could offer me. If we aren't willing to budge on the OGL and neither are they, then there won't be a deal, that's all. They push ahead with de-authorizing, and we continue to withhold our money and trash talk them online, and eagerly crowdfund the first 3PP to test de-authorization in court.

It sucks for us and them, but that's what happens sometimes. Allowing the other party's "red lines" to trump yours is just asking to get rolled.

 

[Charlaquin]

see my reply to that

I agree that I have no better explanation, but I disagree with revoking 1.0a being needed for this at all

Well, I certainly don’t think it’s needed either, but it seems exactly like the thinking of WotC to me.

Also, they walked that part back yesterday, so they too agree it is not needed, yet they still want to get rid of 1.0a. I believe it is about it being perpetual and irrevocable, nothing else, they want to be able to change their minds in the future.

Which part did they walk back yesterday?

 

[Alzrius]

They have lawyers and money and everything to lose. This isn't a fight.

Again, none of those make it inevitable that they'll win. The idea that simply wanting it more, or having more money/lawyers/resources, makes a favorable court ruling a foregone conclusion is cynical, not realistic.

Then you've already lost.

Except for the fact that we haven't already lost, and have a very real chance of winning.

The aspect of the community that cares about the OGL numbers in the thousands. Tens of thousands. D&D players are measured in the millions.
WotC doesn't want to lose those players, but they also know that it's 0.3% of the brand's audience. They might be an acceptable loss and will be replaced in a matter of months. They also know many of the people who cancelled their sub are posturing and won't actually stop buying D&D books or playing the game.

I'm honestly not sure what relevance you think that has. The legal veracity of a particular argument in no way depends on how many people care about it. As I pointed out to you before, we've had multiple lawyers affirm that WotC's claims of being able to revoke/de-authorize the OGL are legally shaky at best. Saying "they have more lawyers," or "they want it more," or "almost no one cares" have little-to-no impact on that; certainly, a judge won't care about any of those things.

 

[eyeheartawk]

THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT.

Posturing about the OGL won't stop WotC yanking it. Right now you've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
Instead, the community could insist the replacement to the 1.0a OGL continues to protect those publisher's livelihoods or makes it even easier for them to make money. Y'know, like the advertising on DnDBeyond that WotC pitched, which would get a heck of a lot of attention on 3PP. Or a "D&D Compatible" logo... which WotC also pitched.

Gee... it seems like WotC is thinking of more ways to try and help those publishers' livelihoods than the community.

I and multiple people in the thread have already told you that we have been.

You think they walked back numerous objectionable elements already out of the goodness of their hearts?

It's because we yelled about it on the internet.

You continuously ignoring that salient truth doesn't make it go away.

 

[Matt Thomason]

THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT.

Posturing about the OGL won't stop WotC yanking it. Right now you've tried nothing and are all out of ideas.
Instead, the community could insist the replacement to the 1.0a OGL continues to protect those publisher's livelihoods or makes it even easier for them to make money.

Uh, we have? We've asked they add new wording to clarify they recognize the fact that they cannot take those livelihoods away. Until they do that, those livelihoods are far better protected under the binding 1.0a agreement we have with them than anything else they could possibly offer short of actual cash.

 

[FormerLurker]

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

No. But expecting a billion dollar company to lose a legal fight is.

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

And multiple lawyers have said it is.
There's no consensus. It will depend on the judge and who has more desire to fight.

And, really, WotC doesn't even need to fight. Because for the money a legal battle would take, they could just buy Paizo. Lisa Stevens happily signed off on selling WotC to Hasbro. She might do the same for Paizo.
It wouldn't even cost much. Less than they paid for D&D Beyond.

 

[FormerLurker]

It doesn't matter that it was a different time. The OGL 1.0a was meant to be, and stated to be in writing repeatably by WotC, irrevokable. I understand that the current corporate leadership wishes their predecessors had done things differently, but they didn't, and they have to live with it. They would be better off making 6e its own game, less compatible with a system they have no control over, and putting their walled garden around it. Since they seem to think the name, "Dungeons & Dragons" is so very valuable, they can trade off that.

But they don't have to live with it. They have the money and resources to remove it.