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.

 

[Dausuul]

Though, I don't see how it would fix the broken OGC problem, since if it's abandoned it doesn't really matter what license you use because they'll never be updated again.

It wouldn't. Which is a shame, but it's also a pretty small loss overall. Having the 3.5E SRD moved under a Creative Commons license (which is far better than any incarnation of the OGL, including 1.0a) would be such a huge win that I think it would be worth letting go of that particular detail.

I highly doubt that Wizards would go that far, since the 3.5E SRD includes a whole lot of stuff they're trying to keep hold of. But if they did do that, I'd drop all opposition and resubscribe to DDB immediately.

 

[Micah Sweet]

you... they have not yet back peddled on what YOU want.
The fact that more and more of the community is willing to come to the table shows they are giving on things SOME of us want.

What I want is for 3pp to continue making product using the material currently available through the OGL 1.0a (the various SRDs produced by WotC and others), without the reasonable fear that their ability to do business will be suddenly taken away from them. I feel this is a reasonable ask, and the 1.2 doesn't do it. If there was a way to make the 1.2 do that, I would support it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

None.

But then, I have a irrevocable, perpetually valid license on my side. I don't have to compromise. That the whole point of the OGL. You don't negotiate with somebody robbing you. You stop it in its entirety or you get robbed. Getting robbed by degrees lesser or more is still being robbed.

"I caught this guy breaking into my house three times in the past year or so, but I've caught him and he's stopped every time I caught him. Therefore, we should take no measures to ever stop him from trying again, since we'll probably just stop the next attempt."

Honestly man, in this and a bunch of other threads, you seem absolutely determined to defend WotC and make us take their crappy medicine by using whatever form of pretzel logic fits to hand.

Nobody is breaking into anyone's house.
Nobody is taking your food or money.

you seem absolutely determined to defend WotC

I find that laughable... I have not defended WotC in anyway OTHER then saying all they care about is profit (if that is a defense it is a pretty odd one)

I have a irrevocable, perpetually valid license on my side.

if that is true (and the law seems to be up in the air) then no defense is needed, you already won. Just take them to court.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Not sure why you keep going for the player and not the ball.

didn't there used to be rules against that? We addressed the argument not the poster?

 

[eyeheartawk]

Nobody is taking your food or money.

They're literally threatening people's ability to make money and put food on the table.

So, again, no.

 

[TheSword]

Honestly man, in this and a bunch of other threads, you seem absolutely determined to defend WotC and make us take their crappy medicine by using whatever form of pretzel logic fits to hand.

It’s called a different perspective. @GMforPowergamers and I clearly see things differently to you clearly.

From my own point of view it’s because you and others are focusing on what you thought you had in the past (permanance and complete freedom from WotC) instead of what is on the table in front of you: the ability to keep publishing for 5e with all the marketing and market benefits that gives you.

You’re also framing this as a question of survival when it is actually a question of compromise. There are some 3pp, who want this substantial relationship with 5e and absolutely no relationship with WotC. WotC are saying that isn’t going to be the case, but you absolutely can continue to publish. “If you want to publish for and benefit from our game - we come with the bargain.”

Ironically the more WotC is framed as the enemy and the evil empire - the harder this pill becomes to swallow. It’s almost become psychosomatic. The very fact that WotC want this seems to have become the reason they can’t have it!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What I want is for 3pp to continue making product using the material currently available through the OGL 1.0a (the various SRDs produced by WotC and others), without the reasonable fear that their ability to do business will be suddenly taken away from them. I feel this is a reasonable ask, and the 1.2 doesn't do it. If there was a way to make the 1.2 do that, I would support it.

okay... so what about it needs to be changed?

IN my survey I had a bunch of stuff about needing to have rules for keeping content others made open still open until such times as THEY revoked it, and needing for there to be an appeal process for the shutting down of 3pp access for content violations... I also suggested a time limit on personal things... like you can't go back to something I said in High School and be like "30 years ago you said a bad word so you lose access to the OGL"

 

[DMZ2112]

It would be better.

Though, I don't see how it would fix the broken OGC problem, since if it's abandoned it doesn't really matter what license you use because they'll never be updated again.

No, you're right, it's not a fix, and I shouldn't have implied that it is. But it is possible to conceive of a pathway under CC to continued distribution of broken pieces that only rely on the SRD 3.5, even if they become closed content otherwise.

I also don't think this is likely in a general sense.

You'll get no argument from me there. But I didn't think it was likely for them to release any of the SRD 5.1 to a CC license, either. The attitude around here seems to be that the release was negligible, but I was genuinely surprised by how much was included.

Was it a token gesture, and likely covered by free use anyway? Sure. But we've been saying from the beginning that one of the greatest strengths of the OGL wasn't the rights it authorized, but rather the freedom from fear of litigation it guaranteed.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They're literally threatening people's ability to make money and put food on the table.

by realasing the core d20 system to the CC and putting this new OGL out (along with the fact that they MUST know by now about ORC) I am not seeing anyone really being threatened anymore.

No longer will some kickstarter that blows up end up turning from a huge win to an undeliverable product (it could have with those royalties)
No longer does the 3pp have to change everything in a few days, or a few weeks or a few months
No longer does the 3pp lose the ability to sell there back catalog if they don't agree.

I have been told by MANY on here that there is literally NOTHING short of time travel that could make it a safe harbor again (since we know they don't want it there any more) so I am at a loss as to what you think they even CAN do at this point for those people.

So, again, no.

 

[The Sigil]

I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.

I'll just throw the following in here as I haven't seen anyone comment on one particular aspect of things... and that is the way that the OGL functions. As many have noted, it was based on the GPL and when a publisher uses either the OGL or GPL to either redistribute Open Game Content or create derivative works of Open Game Content and publicly distribute those, it takes on the form of a "contract" - you are being allowed to do something you are normally not allowed to do due to copyright law, and in return you must follow the stipulations for use set out by the one providing the terms of use.

One of the things I haven't seen a comment on from the lawyer crowd is the concept of "Contra proferentem" - the idea that when any term in the language of a contract is ambiguous, the ambiguous language should be construed against the party that drafted the contract. In other words, whether the OGL 1.0a was "poorly drafted" and has "ambiguous language" doesn't matter in terms of later arguments over interpretation - since WotC drafted it, their responsibility as the party drafting the terms was to make sure the terms unambiguously gave them everything they wanted so any power they didn't clearly reserve to themselves in the terms of the license itself, they don't have.

So it doesn't really matter whether you think WotC's interpretation of the terms of the license are "moral" or "correct" or otherwise. If there is more than one interpretation over whether they have the power to do something - and clearly there is when it comes to the question of "do they have the power to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a?" - the answer by default is "no, they do not have the power to do that."

This is almost certainly why WotC is using the language that the OGL 1.0a is "no longer authorized" instead of the word "revoke" the OGL 1.0a - because there is no language in the OGL 1.0a that speaks to revocation (other than breach of terms) but there IS language about Wizards being able to publish updated versions of the license and that "any authorized versions" may be used. There is no question that the OGL itself gives WotC the power to authorize new versions of the license (without that power, they could not publish updated versions) but it does not explicitly provide the power to deauthorize a previously-authorized version, and that's what any legal argument is going to come down to - "does the OGL 1.0a unambiguously state that WotC has the ability to deauthorize previously-authorized versions of the license?"

Of course, WotC asserts they do have that right (presumably their lawyers are prepared to assert that "the power to authorize necessarily comes with the power to deauthorize") and whether or not they actually do have that right will remain ambiguous and clarity as to whether the OGL 1.0a remains a document under which publishers can publish with the assurance without the threat of legal action hanging over their head will only come when (a) there is a ruling in a court of law or (b) WotC publicly and permanently abandons their claim to that right.

(end lawyerly stuff)

Does this add any clarity to the discussion? Probably not. There seem to be two parallel threads of thought here - whether WotC is within their moral rights to do this and whether they are within their legal rights to do so. This has no bearing on whether they are in the moral right, but perhaps it gives something for those that think WotC has the legal right to do this to consider that they might not have considered before.

As a non-lawyer, when reading the OGL 1.0a with the concept of "contra proferentem" in mind, I think the answer of whether or not WotC has the legal standing to deauthorize a previously-authorized version of the OGL is clearly "no" - the powers of authorization and deauthorization are two different powers that are not necessarily tied together.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No, you're right, it's not a fix, and I shouldn't have implied that it is. But it is possible to conceive of a pathway under CC to continued distribution of broken pieces that only rely on the SRD 3.5, even if they become closed content otherwise.


You'll get no argument from me there. But I didn't think it was likely for them to release any of the SRD 5.1 to a CC license, either. The attitude around here seems to be that the release was negligible, but I was genuinely surprised by how much was included.

Was it a token gesture, and likely covered by free use anyway? Sure. But we've been saying from the beginning that one of the greatest strengths of the OGL wasn't the rights it authorized, but rather the freedom from fear of litigation it guaranteed.

I would say one of the greatest strengths of the 1.0a was the huge breadth of material in its attached SRDs that is available for open use. THAT's what actually allows 3pps to make these products, and that's what I don't want to see disappear or br dramatically reduced.

That, and a reasonable legal assurance that 3pps can continue making product as they have for the last 20+ years, is what I want. Make a contract that allows that, and I will support it.

 

[eyeheartawk]

That, and a reasonable legal assurance that 3pps can continue making product as they have for the last 20+ years, is what I want. Make a contract that allows that, and I will support it.

That's the rub though, isn't it?

Short of adding irrevocable to 1.0a and transferring stewardship of the OGL to a third party, will any 3PP feel assured enough to publish as before under it?

I think getting anything short of that is failure in both a pragmatic sense but also a moral one.

 

[dave2008]

No, it wasn't a public draft. It was an attempt to intimidate publishers into giving up their existing rights by threatening them with something even worse than the contracts they were being asked to sign. Which is frankly a stronger counterpoint than a public draft would have been against the argument that Wizards hasn't done anything wrong yet.

I as never making an argument that WotC hasn't done anything wrong yet. Not even close.

 

[Steampunkette]

It’s called a different perspective. @GMforPowergamers and I clearly see things differently to you clearly.

From my own point of view it’s because you and others are focusing on what you thought you had in the past (permanance and complete freedom from WotC) instead of what is on the table in front of you: the ability to keep publishing for 5e with all the marketing and market benefits that gives you.

You’re also framing this as a question of survival when it is actually a question of compromise. There are some 3pp, who want this substantial relationship with 5e and absolutely no relationship with WotC. WotC are saying that isn’t going to be the case, but you absolutely can continue to publish. “If you want to publish for and benefit from our game - we come with the bargain.”

Ironically the more WotC is framed as the enemy and the evil empire - the harder this pill becomes to swallow. It’s almost become psychosomatic. The very fact that WotC want this seems to have become the reason they can’t have it!

If you've got all the freedom and permanence in the world, isn't any compromise by definition an assault on what you -have-?

Not "Had in the Past". Have -now-.

If you built your livelihood off making content for D&D, with a fanbase and a patreon and kickstarters and a webstore, and whatever... wouldn't you see someone who has decided to randomly go all Darth Vader and "Alter the Agreement" that is going to either undermine your business or outright destroy it, based on whether you bend the knee, as the bad guy?

Like. Knowing that not only are they trying to do it -now- but could also do it at -any- time in the future... could you reasonably sign on to that contract to give up what you have to gain nothing but the possibility of future harm to yourself and your company..?

Businesses require stability. 3rd party publishers need to know they can do their business without randomly getting a new one-sided contract they have no choice but to sign.

There's no give and take, here. There is only give. That's not compromise.

Which, y'know. Fine. They're gonna do what they're gonna do. All I can do is tell them "No. 1.0a is permanent, irrevocable, and any compromise from that is a nonstarter." And then regardless of what they decide... I'll be publishing under ORC or CC or whatever else.

Because WotC cannot be trusted to hold to their agreements. When it suits them, they'll change the rules. They've now shown that.

 

[dave2008]

Not at all! I didn't respond sooner 'cause I went AFK to prep my hair for cutting.

New chapter coming up in the life of Steampunkette. Time for a new style and color. I'm thinking Blue or Purple rather than brown.

I've always wanted to go blue, but I could never pull the trigger.

 

[Steampunkette]

I've always wanted to go blue, but I could never pull the trigger.

Dooooo iiiiit. But do it subtle-like.

When I dye my hair (I do it at home in my own bathroom) I always apply the dye, put the foil on, wrap my head up in foil, and then GO TO BED with foil on my head.

I wind up with the -darkest- blues and purples you've ever seen in your life. Where it's just -subtly- not black... But when hair falls in front of my eye and there's a light behind it -I- get to see how vibrant the color is.

Then, over the course of weeks, the color fades and grows lighter and more obvious. And at that point I'm sharing my colored hair with the world.

 

[beholdsa]

One of my biggest gripes about the draft OGL 1.2 that I don't see many people talking about is that it's not even the same type of license as OGL 1.0a.

That is, in OGL 1.0a, the license defines Open Game Content (stuff other publishers can use) and Product Identity (stuff they can't). And once content is released as "Open Game Content," everyone is on equal footing and legally treated the same way. Anyone can participate by releasing Open Game Content to the community.

The draft OGL 1.2, however, doesn't define any sort of Open Game Content or Product Identity mechanism. It's a specific grant from Wizards for the contents of the D&D SRD. There is no way for anyone else to release open content to the community or to build on what others have provided. There is no equal footing. It is not an open license!

In my mind, that is the minimum of what the license needs to do.

 

[eyeheartawk]

On of my biggest gripes about the draft OGL 1.2 that I don't see many people talking about is that it's not even the same type of license as OGL 1.0a.

That is, in OGL 1.0a, the license defines Open Game Content (stuff other publishers can use) and Product Identity (stuff they can't). And once content is released as "Open Game Content," everyone is on equal footing and legally treated the same way. Anyone can participate by releasing Open Game Content to the community.

The draft OGL 1.2, however, doesn't define any sort of Open Game Content or Product Identity mechanism. It's a specific grant from Wizards for the contents of the D&D SRD. There is no way for anyone else to release open content to the community or to build on what others have provided. There is no equal footing. It is not an open license.

That's been noted as one of the bigger problems with it. Just not in this thread, yeah, you're right about that.

 

[dave2008]

I refuse to believe that past behavior is meaningless.

Sure. I didn't mean to suggest it was meaningless, just that what is most important to me is the end result. Now, that is not always the case, and it may not end up being the case here. But I am willing to wait and see a bit. I also refuse to be believe people / corporations can change.

As has been said, they were very clear in the 1.1 about what they want, and I've seen nothing that proves to me that what they want has changed.

In 1.1 they wanted royalties and to steal your stuff (not really - but they could under that version). So what does it mean that they rolled those back? That is clearly a change that I assume you are aware of. Do you believe they never really wanted those so that is not real change? If that is the case, how do we look at 1.1 and decided what they really want - you said it was very clear, but it is not clear to me (again, if the changes they made are not real changes).

 

[Weiley31]

get the baby to safety, but also, kill the snake.

WoTC: Although.....if I let the snake attack the baby, I can employ the use of Sneak Attack as it will be too focused on the infant to notice me. Therefore, the most optimal course of action is to let the child get eaten.

DM: