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.

 

[mamba]

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

I doubt it, but I am ok with finding out

 

[mamba]

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.

I’d argue that their unprecedented success is not exactly the bad side of this deal

 

[Matt Thomason]

Lawyers can do a lot. They just need to as for an injunction or pause of the old license or both licenses until a ruling, which cuts off their opposition from funding.

That also requires a Judge to grant it. That bit seems to be a very big "if" for WotC as things stand, because they appear unable to meet all of the three pillars arguments (which have been mentioned a few times elsewhere on the forums over the past week or so)

 

[mamba]

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.

given that we cannot trust them to honor their agreements, we are forced to. It’s not like we want this, we can live with 1.0a just fine, and so can WotC

 

[Minigiant]

This sounds highly subjective. I don't even think the d20 system and its various derivatives are all that good in the first place, there's far better RPG systems out there from my perspective.

What would be more accurate is whether any major company can make a "D&D-enough RPG" without that infringement.

That's what I said.

No major nongaming company can make a good RPG without infringement of an existing. They would have to buy one.

 

[Velderan]

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

Considering they already settled with Weis and Hickman to allow them to use the license for Dragonlance for the books, they're clearly not unbeatable.

 

[Alzrius]

Cynicism is often realistic.

So you're admitting that it's not always realistic, and as such might not be realistic here.

Lawyers can do a lot. They just need to as for an injunction or pause of the old license or both licenses until a ruling, which cuts off their opposition from funding.

Lawyers can indeed do a lot, such as filing a motion showing that such an injunction would place an undue burden on their clients' business interests, and so convince the judge not to issue it.

This is also presuming it even goes to trial. That's bad publicity WotC doesn't want. They're much more likely to just sit down with Paizo and the leaders of the opposition and strike a deal. Paizo isn't some benevolent entity: they're a business as well. And right now, it's good marketing to stand up to WotC. But if it makes them more money to strike and deal and back down (rather than fight for months and potentially lose), they will.

Except that Paizo doesn't want the bad press either, and abruptly reversing course after making a public announcement that they're leading the charge to protect open gaming would garner them criticism far in excess of the recent flap about their employees unionizing. Given the relatively small nature of their business, and that the community has shown that they're quite willing to back up their claims of dissatisfaction via cancelled subscriptions (and Paizo depends on subscriptions to their Pathfinder and Starfinder product lines for a significant portion of their revenue), Paizo is likely to realize that it's in their business interests not to cut a deal with WotC in this regard.

Logic also comes into play.
There's two outcomes of any legal fight. WotC wins and WotC loses. That's out of our control. But we can decide what the community does. We can either negotiate with WotC or not.

Sure, and we're negotiating by drawing a hard line in the sand on a particular point. "Negotiation" does not inherently mean that all options are on the table. If there are certain things which you cannot give up, or are unwilling to give up (which, again, is not inherently unreasonable), then that's simply part-and-parcel of the negotiation process. Given that the third-party publishers' livelihoods are tied to the OGL v1.0a's continued existence (and that operating in an area of uncertainty, where WotC can conceivably cancel another such license without any legal ambiguities over whether or not they can do so, is also untenable), they clearly have designated that as being such a point. They want it more, in other words.

Which creates four possible outcomes. We "win" if WotC loses, regardless of whether or not the community finds a compromise. But if WotC wins in court, we lose completely. Unless we negotiate. Logically, the negotiating and finding a compromise with this new OGL is the most productive thing the community can do.

And the community is negotiating with them. But, as noted above, this does not mean that they're willing to compromise on all points, nor is there an idea of "a court case must be avoided at all costs since we might lose" driving the community's side of things. There's reason to be very confident that a legal challenge would result in WotC losing, and given that the community is already operating under threat from WotC's actions, such a court case is seen more in terms of what's to be gained rather than lost.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Monte Cook has it right:

Obviously, you comfort them over their faulty gun and take them to buy a new one with your grandma's insulin money.

 

[Minigiant]

Have you not heard of the OSR? New material has been steadily produced for pre-2000 versions of D&D since 2008 to the present day.

OSR is too as popular as ppl claim. It's themes are old and mechanic dated. It mostly reliant on the DMs being all grizzled veterans.

 

[eyeheartawk]

OSR is too as popular as ppl claim. It's themes are old and mechanic dated. It mostly reliant on the DMs being all grizzled veterans.

I've played DCC in bars with dudes younger than me and head to toe tattooed. There's also all kinds of mechanical innovations in the space. It's not 2008 anymore where everything is just a retroclone or whatever.