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.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

No you're missing my core point.

I don't think any major company can make a good RPG without stealing from WOTC enough to lose a fair use claim.

My core point is that there are few good, well designed RPGs that are "closed enough" and "broad enough" for any Megacorp to buy.

That’s ridiculous.

 

[Charlaquin]

WotC is going to remove the OGL 1.0a. That seems to be a major goal of this. Everything else is negotiable.

Yes, that’s the one part neither party is willing to budge on.

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.

Well, no, because WotC really likes money. If enough people make clear their intentions not to give WotC money any more if they go through with this, it is possible WotC will concede this point. And if they don’t, the open gaming community won’t want to give WotC money anymore anyway, so it’s really a no risk proposition for them. Moreover, the open gaming community is pretty confident that they would win if they had to defend their right to keep using OGL 1.0, even if WotC tries to claim it isn’t authorized. So there really is zero incentive for the open gaming community to cede that ground.

 

[mamba]

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.

you know what, you convinced me, I was willing to compromise in the survey, now I won’t. 1.0a irrevocable or they can go to hell.

If their stance is they can do anything they want anyway, then why compromise.

If the number were so low, they would not have walked back this much in the first place…

 

[Alzrius]

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

Again, you're wrong. Money alone does not decide legal merit; larger companies can, and have, lost suits to smaller ones.

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

So you're admitting that the fight is not already lost, since you recognize that a judge could potentially rule against Hasbro. Ergo, you've ceded the point that it is worthwhile to keep fighting Hasbro in this regard.

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.

Except Lisa Stevens, in her role as Paizo CEO, presumably signed off on the public statement Paizo made announcing their intention to go to court on this point. As such, she's made her intentions on the matter quite clear. So in that regard, WotC does need to fight...and as you yourself admitted, they might lose.

 

[FormerLurker]

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.

No. You're not.
You're planning your heels and going "nuh-uh!!" And WotC will just walk around you.
The cancelled subs gave WotC pause. But if they can't win those subs back or find a compromise, they'll consider them acceptable losses and do whatever the hell they want.

WotC is off balance and willing to listen. Now is the time to actually TALK to them and have something to say. But so far all everyone wants to say is "No." Which gets us nowhere.

 

[jgbrowning]

Gee, it's almost like the community should negotiate to force WotC to make the next license even more irrevocable and unalterable. include the word "perpetual" and such.
We can look forward or we can look backwards. I know which is more productive....

This is even more hilariously disconnected with reality than your previous statements.

WotC is taking a license that has functioned for 23 and deciding it's not irrevocable and unalterable and the community can all just come together now to combat them to make a new license that stops them from doing what they've just done to the OGL 1.0a..

Something which they think is beneficial to them.

joe " " b.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The problem is that the architects of the deal tried to bind the hands of the future leadership of WotC with a deal that on the face of it doesn’t seem very equitable. Paizo - the biggest beneficiary - certainly wasn’t assisting WotC and I don’t believe 5e does now - with the exception of maybe selling an adventure path or two maybe! It certainly won’t help with DDB sales which they see as the future.

Knowingly entering a lopsided deal and then being amazed when the side that gets the sticky end of the stick tries to get out of the deal seems like a bit of naivety to me.

They've had over 20 years to try to get out of a deal they were all for, in writing, until very recently. The only reason they're trying this is because they're making enough money that they think they can afford to be bad actors.

 

[mamba]

THEN DO SOMETHING TO STOP IT.

what exactly do you think we are doing here?

 

[Jer]

WotC is off balance and willing to listen. Now is the time to actually TALK to them and have something to say. But so far all everyone wants to say is "No." Which gets us nowhere.

When someone wants to unilaterally break a contract that they have advertised as non-revocable, the only proper answer is "no".

 

[jgbrowning]

WotC is off balance and willing to listen. Now is the time to actually TALK to them and have something to say. But so far all everyone wants to say is "No." Which gets us nowhere.

Dear company that just screwed over everyone that they had previously not been screwing over, may we suggest sir that you create a new thing that prevents you from doing what you're doing now in the future?

joe b.