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 deauthorized.
  • Non-TTRPG mediums such as "educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses" are unaffected by the new license.
  • The 'we can use your content for any reason' provision is going away
  • The royalties aspect is also being removed
  • Content previously released under OGL v1.0a can still be sold, but the statement on that is very short and seems to imply that new content must still use OGL v1.1. This is still a 'de-authorization' of the current OGL.
  • They don't mention the 'reporting revenue' aspect, or the 'we can change this in any way at 30 days notice' provision; of course nobody can sign a contract which can be unilaterally changed by one party.
  • There's still no mention of the 'share-a-like' aspect which defines an 'open' license.
The statement can be read below. While it does roll back some elements, the fact remains that the OGL v1.0a is still being de-authorized.

D&D historian Benn Riggs (author of Slaying the Dragon) made some comments on WotC's declared intentions -- "This is a radical change of the original intention of the OGL. The point of the OGL was to get companies to stop making their own games and start making products for D&D. WoTC execs spent a ton of time convincing companies like White Wolf to make OGL products."

Linda Codega on Gizmodo said "For all intents and purposes, the OGL 1.1 that was leaked to the press was supposed to go forward. Wizards has realized that they made a mistake and they are walking back numerous parts of the leaked OGL 1.1..."

Ryan Dancey, architect of the original OGL commented "They made an announcement today that they're altering their trajectory based on pressure from the community. This is still not what we want. We want Hasbro to agree not to ever attempt to deauthorize v1.0a of the #OGL. Your voices are being heard, and they matter. We're providing visible encouragement and support to everyone inside Wizards of the Coast fighting for v1.0a. It matters. Knowing we're here for them matters. Keep fighting!"


Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

When we initially conceived of revising the OGL, it was with three major goals in mind. First, we wanted the ability to prevent the use of D&D content from being included in hateful and discriminatory products. Second, we wanted to address those attempting to use D&D in web3, blockchain games, and NFTs by making clear that OGL content is limited to tabletop roleplaying content like campaigns, modules, and supplements. And third, we wanted to ensure that the OGL is for the content creator, the homebrewer, the aspiring designer, our players, and the community—not major corporations to use for their own commercial and promotional purpose.

Driving these goals were two simple principles: (1) Our job is to be good stewards of the game, and (2) the OGL exists for the benefit of the fans. Nothing about those principles has wavered for a second.

That was why our early drafts of the new OGL included the provisions they did. That draft language was provided to content creators and publishers so their feedback could be considered before anything was finalized. In addition to language allowing us to address discriminatory and hateful conduct and clarifying what types of products the OGL covers, our drafts included royalty language designed to apply to large corporations attempting to use OGL content. It was never our intent to impact the vast majority of the community.

However, it’s clear from the reaction that we rolled a 1. It has become clear that it is no longer possible to fully achieve all three goals while still staying true to our principles. So, here is what we are doing.

The next OGL will contain the provisions that allow us to protect and cultivate the inclusive environment we are trying to build and specify that it covers only content for TTRPGs. That means that other expressions, such as educational and charitable campaigns, livestreams, cosplay, VTT-uses, etc., will remain unaffected by any OGL update. Content already released under 1.0a will also remain unaffected.

What it will not contain is any royalty structure. It also will not include the license back provision that some people were afraid was a means for us to steal work. That thought never crossed our minds. Under any new OGL, you will own the content you create. We won’t. Any language we put down will be crystal clear and unequivocal on that point. The license back language was intended to protect us and our partners from creators who incorrectly allege that we steal their work simply because of coincidental similarities . As we continue to invest in the game that we love and move forward with partnerships in film, television, and digital games, that risk is simply too great to ignore. The new OGL will contain provisions to address that risk, but we will do it without a license back and without suggesting we have rights to the content you create. Your ideas and imagination are what makes this game special, and that belongs to you.

A couple of last thoughts. First, we won’t be able to release the new OGL today, because we need to make sure we get it right, but it is coming. Second, you’re going to hear people say that they won, and we lost because making your voices heard forced us to change our plans. Those people will only be half right. They won—and so did we.

Our plan was always to solicit the input of our community before any update to the OGL; the drafts you’ve seen were attempting to do just that. We want to always delight fans and create experiences together that everyone loves. We realize we did not do that this time and we are sorry for that. Our goal was to get exactly the type of feedback on which provisions worked and which did not–which we ultimately got from you. Any change this major could only have been done well if we were willing to take that feedback, no matter how it was provided–so we are. Thank you for caring enough to let us know what works and what doesn’t, what you need and what scares you. Without knowing that, we can’t do our part to make the new OGL match our principles. Finally, we’d appreciate the chance to make this right. We love D&D’s devoted players and the creators who take them on so many incredible adventures. We won’t let you down.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
WotC may have legal advice indicating they can exploit the loophole in the update mechanism to negate the licence. Or - more likely IMHO - they think they can do this unilaterally because a lawsuit would be ruinous for their competitors.
My view is that there are stronger legal arguments available to WotC than a very implausible interpretation of section 9.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
It doesn't matter if it is or isn't. Trust in it is gone. This is a case of perception being greater than reality.
I am not talking about trust in WotC. I am talking about the OGL. @mamba posted that they "trusted their license . . . that it was enforceable."

And given that, as far as I know, no one has either commenced an action by reliance on the OGL, nor defended an action on that basis, my question remains: how does anyone know that it is not enforceable?

Or to put it much as I did upthread: if parties to licence agreements with WotC plan to make decisions based on their trust in WotC to keep its promises, rather than based on their confidence in the terms of the contracts they enter into, then why worry whether or not those promises are enforceable?
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
I am not talking about trust in WotC. I am talking about the OGL. @mamba posted that they "trusted their license . . . that it was enforceable."

And given that, as far as I know, no one has either commenced an action by reliance on the OGL, nor defended an action on that basis, my question remains: how does anyone know that it is not enforceable?

Or to put it much as I did upthread: if parties to licence agreements with WotC plan to make decisions based on their trust in WotC to keep its promises, rather than based on their confidence in the terms of the contracts they enter into, then why worry whether or not those promises are enforceable?
This is all about trust, though. Prior to this scandal the 3PP had faith in the OGL 1.0a to be rock solid and always be there. Perhaps they felt it was enforceable. Perhaps they just didn't think about it and trusted that it was accurate. This scandal rocked that trust and now it doesn't matter if it's enforceable or not. They can't have faith in it any longer and now are unsure, so they are leaving in droves or ORC.

How can they know it's not enforceable? They can't. How can they know that it is enforceable? They can't. And that's the entire problem in a nutshell.
 

mamba

Legend
My view is that there are stronger legal arguments available to WotC than a very implausible interpretation of section 9.
when why aren’t they going for those? One would think they go for the approach that has the best chance of success and that they spent a lot of time looking into it, so WotC seems to disagree with your assessment
 

mamba

Legend
And given that, as far as I know, no one has either commenced an action by reliance on the OGL, nor defended an action on that basis, my question remains: how does anyone know that it is not enforceable?
no one knows that, my take is that it most likely is, which is why WotC is going for a really weak approach that is at least untested, so might have a sliver of a chance.

If no one goes to court over it, it will be revoked however, no matter the chances
 

mamba

Legend
is all about trust, though. Prior to this scandal the 3PP had faith in the OGL 1.0a to be rock solid and always be there. Perhaps they felt it was enforceable. Perhaps they just didn't think about it and trusted that it was accurate. This scandal rocked that trust and now it doesn't matter if it's enforceable or not.
but this is wrong. If you go to court and turn out to be correct and that it is irrevocable, then trust is no longer needed, you now know that it is. Trust is no longer required.
 

pemerton

Legend
This is all about trust, though. Prior to this scandal the 3PP had faith in the OGL 1.0a to be rock solid and always be there. Perhaps they felt it was enforceable. Perhaps they just didn't think about it and trusted that it was accurate. This scandal rocked that trust and now it doesn't matter if it's enforceable or not. They can't have faith in it any longer and now are unsure, so they are leaving in droves or ORC.

How can they know it's not enforceable? They can't. How can they know that it is enforceable? They can't. And that's the entire problem in a nutshell.
This may all be true. But it supports my rhetorical question: what does it matter if its enforceable?

This is why I think all the posting and concern about "irrevocable" licences is mostly irrelevant: because whatever the licence text, and whatever the legal arguments, when a large commercial player starts throwing its weight around the response will likely be the same.

If no one goes to court over it, it will be revoked however, no matter the chances
I don't know what you mean by this. WotC can say whatever it wants - but that doesn't mean it has any legal effect. A 3PP doesn't need to go to court to keep relying on the contractual entitlements. They can just keep doing what they're doing in reliance on them.

when why aren’t they going for those? One would think they go for the approach that has the best chance of success and that they spent a lot of time looking into it, so WotC seems to disagree with your assessment
I don't know how you're so confident about WotC's legal argument. Nowhere does the 1.2 draft mention section 9 of the OGL v 1.0a. And the 1.1 draft made acceptance of an update one of its terms; it didn't involve any general claim to section 9 powers of "deauthorisation".
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
This is all about trust, though. Prior to this scandal the 3PP had faith in the OGL 1.0a to be rock solid and always be there. Perhaps they felt it was enforceable. Perhaps they just didn't think about it and trusted that it was accurate. This scandal rocked that trust and now it doesn't matter if it's enforceable or not. They can't have faith in it any longer and now are unsure, so they are leaving in droves or ORC.

How can they know it's not enforceable? They can't. How can they know that it is enforceable? They can't. And that's the entire problem in a nutshell.
At this point the only way anyone can, will, or should have confidence in any of the OGL licenses is after they've been tested in court.
 

mamba

Legend
I don't know what you mean by this. WotC can say whatever it wants - but that doesn't mean it has any legal effect. A 3PP doesn't need to go to court to keep relying on the contractual entitlements. They can just keep doing what they're doing in reliance on them.
if no one continues using 1.0a, then it is effectively revoked, no matter what a court would have decided

I don't know how you're so confident about WotC's legal argument. Nowhere does the 1.2 draft mention section 9 of the OGL v 1.0a. And the 1.1 draft made acceptance of an update one of its terms; it didn't involve any general claim to section 9 powers of "deauthorisation".
I am referring to what you said

My view is that there are stronger legal arguments available to WotC than a very implausible interpretation of section 9.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
but this is wrong. If you go to court and turn out to be correct and that it is irrevocable, then trust is no longer needed, you now know that it is. Trust is no longer required.
You want to put up the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars to do that? I'm sure they don't.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Recent & Upcoming Releases

Top