OGL v1.2 Survey Feedback: 'Hasn't Hit The Mark'

WotC has shared some of the (still ongoing) survey feedback following the release of the Open Game License v1.2 draft last week.

We want to thank the community for continuing to share their OGL 1.2 feedback with us. Already more than 10,000 of you have responded to the survey, which will close on February 3.

So far, survey responses have made it clear that this draft of OGL 1.2 hasn't hit the mark for our community. Please continue to share your thoughts.

Thanks to direct feedback from you and our virtual tabletop partners it's also clear the draft VTT policy missed the mark. Animations were clearly the wrong focus. We'll do better next round.

We will continue to keep an article updated with any new details posted here or elsewhere on the OGL. You can read it here

The linked FAQ (no, not THAT linked FAQ, the one where they say the original OGL cannot be revoked, I think we're supposed to ignore that one!) indicates that recent rumours about $30 subscriptions and homebrew content are false. They also say that they will be revising the 'harmful content' morality clause in the recent OGL draft, which in practice gives WotC power to shut down competitors at will.

You can still take the survey here until Feb 3rd.

 

[dave2008]

There's nothing wrong with the 1.0 that WotC didn't make wrong. They are the threat, not a helpful party pointing out a flaw. There is no "improvement" until they've restored the status quo and made amends.

We're asking them to put down the gun and give us the key to the safe because they can't be trusted with it. They don't also get to take things out of the house because they're sorry about threatening us.

I am sympathetic to this thought. I get it, I really do. But I just don't think that is how it works.

 

[Art Waring]

I have had several lawyers tell me that is not what the OGL 1.0(a) was. It is poorly written from a legal language standpoint. That is why we are where we are. If the document was a good legal document, we would not have this discussion.

I want a better legal document. I would hope we get that with ORC and what WotC eventually produces, but we have to wait and see.

The 1.0a was drafted based on open software licenses available at the time, after which many of those licenses were revised to include "irrevocable" terms. The 1.0a was unfortunately not revised this way.

Despite this fact, open software licenses without the word irrevocable have been found to hold up in court. The fact remains that they are arguing a technicality (they claim it is able to be deauthorized because the term "authorized" appears in the license), but they know they will have to contest this in a courtroom.

 

[Horwath]

hasn't hit the mark!?
optimistic take on it.

More like, crashed like Hindenburg.

 

[MarkB]

I am sympathetic to this thought. I get it, I really do. But I just don't think that is how it works.

WotC and a huge number of 3PPs have all found the OGL sufficiently well-written and legally binding for them to do business under it for over two decades. There's no fundamental reason for that to no longer be the case.

 

[eyeheartawk]

The 1.0a was drafted based on open software licenses available at the time, after which many of those licenses were revised to include "irrevocable" terms. The 1.0a was unfortunately not revised this way.

Despite this fact, open software licenses without the word irrevocable have been found to hold up in court. The fact remains that they are arguing a technicality (they claim it is able to be deauthorized because the term "authorized" appears in the license), but they know they will have to contest this in a courtroom.

I find the argument that the OGL doesn't pass muster as disingenuous. Its language was consistent with contemporaneous open licenses of the time. That aside, whose fault is it that the OGL was never updated with clearer language in regards to its permanence?

That would be WotC's.

This is why its important that even if we get OGL 1.0a or b (with added permanence and irrevocability language) it needs a third party to hold and control the license. So that, in the future if the standards change the party controlling it doesn't have a compelling business interest to not update license in a clean and fair way.

 

[Dausuul]

I mean, I'm of two minds in the sense that the OGL needs to be preserved and also nobody should trust Wizards and a new license and community SRD should be created for the next time they decide to go nuclear.

I think both of these can hold simultaneously. It's absolutely the case IMO that Wizards is a company that has proven that they're not to be trusted to act in good faith long term and so folks shouldn't be entering into new partnerships with them. But also they don't get to revoke the OGL off the SRDs (or worse "deauthorize" it entirely) because they sold it to everyone as permanent and perpetual and just because their lawyers found "one weird trick" in the way language has evolved over the last two decades doesn't mean that they can actually do what they say they can do.

This.

In the long term, most 3PPs would be well served to migrate to a new license. But not everyone has the option to do that in the short term. Furthermore, one of the parts of the OGL that's gotten less press than the plight of 3PPs was its commitment that D&D would always belong to the community; no matter what WotC did with it, it would always be possible for someone else to pick up the torch. I'm not ready to walk away from that. And if you think preserving the OGL is a heavy lift, try getting Wizards to commit to something like the ORC.

 

[Jer]

Despite this fact, open software licenses without the word irrevocable have been found to hold up in court. The fact remains that they are arguing a technicality (they claim it is able to be deauthorized because the term "authorized" appears in the license), but they know they will have to contest this in a courtroom.

This is correct. Any license can be challenged because American courts pretty much allow anyone to sue anyone. It doesn't mean they'll win the challenge, it just means that the threat of a lawsuit is always there.

And Wizards is a company that has been provably acting in bad faith when it comes to contracts in recent years. They played the "our legal team is bigger and we have more money" game with actual factual signed contracts with business partners and have lost contractual disputes where they try to wiggle out of terms that they'd agreed to (Gale Force Nine and Weis and Hickman are both examples of this). So of course they're going to play that game with a license like this. Their strategy is to push the bounds that the law will allow and force other people to pay for lawyers to make them fulfill their obligations.

If the company offering the license decides to act in bad faith because they think they have the bigger legal team then there's not much you can do. Wizards could put out a new 1.2 "irrevocable" license tomorrow and 10 years from now and 3 executive teams later find a way to wiggle out of it too.

It's all about reputation and good faith. If Wizards goes through with trying to destroy the OGL - whether they actually can succeed or not - nobody should trust them to keep their word on any contract or license they offer in the future. Because their reputation is only getting worse with every one of these actions they take.

 

[mamba]

I have had several lawyers tell me that is not what the OGL 1.0(a) was.

yeah, and we have several that tell you the opposite. Chances are it actually is irrevocable, just like your purported future license would be, but for all licenses there is only one way to find out for sure…

If WotC claims it has found a dubious legal loophole in that new license and will withdraw it, then someone has to step up and get this settled in court or it is factually withdrawn, just like what is happening now.

So no, that new license will not be much safer than 1.0a already is. In the next 20 years practices of contract writing will continue to change, creating new uncertainties where right now there are none that WotC can then try to squeeze through to invalidate the new license (just like what is happening with 1.0a right now).

The bottom line is, there is no contract that will not have a certain level of uncertainty, esp. developing over time, that WotC could not try to exploit. So either you are prepared to defend it in court, or you should not enter into it.

The one thing that has become absolutely clear is that WotC will be a bad actor and throwing their weight around when they think they benefit from that.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It's somewhat positive that they've admitted it's fallen short, but there's a gap between that and actually fixing the issues. So we'll see what the next draft brings - and, crucially, whether they're determined to try to revoke 1.0a.

yeah, I hope this means a lot of fine tuning going into this

 

[Art Waring]

I find the argument that the OGL doesn't pass muster as disingenuous. Its language was consistent with contemporaneous open licenses of the time. That aside, whose fault is it that the OGL was never updated with clearer language in regards to its permanence?

That would be WotC's.

This is why its important that even if we get OGL 1.0a or b (with added permanence and irrevocability language) it needs a third party to hold and control the license. So that, in the future if the standards change the party controlling it doesn't have a compelling business interest to not update license in a clean and fair way.

Absolutely agree. That's why the ORC is looking to be the most promising so far, because it will not be controlled by any ttrpg companies. A neutral third party is indeed important to keeping the open gaming community healthy and free from outside interference.