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 not have the power to deauthorize a version of the OGL. If that had been a power that we wanted to reserve for Hasbro, we would have enumerated it in the license. I am on record numerous places in email and blogs and interviews saying that the license could never be revoked.

Ryan also maintains the Open Gaming Foundation.

As has been noted previously, even WotC in its own OGL FAQ did not believe at the time that the licence could be revoked.

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

​

 

[Alzrius]

again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it. If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.

Yeah, but I believe that @Umbran mentioned elsewhere that there was a court case about that, and the open source license was found to be irrevocable even if it didn't include that specific word, which is hopeful.

 

[kenada]

Yeah, but I believe that @Umbran mentioned elsewhere that there was a court case about that, and the open source license was found to be irrevocable even if it didn't include that specific word, which is hopeful.

I assume he means the same one mentioned earlier by @estar: Jacobsen v. Katzer.

 

[mamba]

again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it. If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.

yes, but they already were tried and determined to be non-revocable before they added it. Still felt like a good idea to add it though…

 

[rknop]

I wonder if this will sour any Open Gaming movement provided by the new incarnation of the OGL. ....

Regardless of their attempt to destroy the OGL 1.0a (which is what most of the furor now is about), the "O"GL 1.1 as we knew about it before was in no way an open license, despite the very deceptive name. (Indeed, I was already very grouchy about it because of the blatant attempt to claim openness that they didn't have, and because it would muddy the waters under openness.)

Any license that (a) requires you to send financials, and, eventually, royalties to a specific company, and (b) can be revoked at any time by that company, is in no way open, and anybody who pays attention to what they're doing will not bet anything they care about being able to keep selling on that license.

The license might allow a blossoming of D&D-derivative content within the strictly controlled walled garden of WotC, but in no way could it create or sustain any open gaming movement. And, with their attempt now to kill the OGL 1.0a, they are explicitly trying to end any open gaming movement that exists.

 

[Kinematics]

My understanding was that the OGL wording was problematic/outdated even when 1.0a was created, but I would be unsurprised if it got even further behind in 2007. And of course the WotC of 2007 would have had no incentive to update it, because even 7 years later they must have been planning 4E and the GSL.

WotC would have had no incentive to update it based on the changes in 2007, because 2007 was the release of GPL 3. There was a lot of controversy over GPL 3, but its main purpose was in closing loopholes regarding implementing code in hardware (such as router firmware), and patent rights (this was back in the days of the rush of patents for "doing X on a computer", where X would not have been patentable normally).

There is no reason for anyone drafting things at WotC to think those changes had anything remotely to do with their version of an open license. The addition of the word "irrevocable" to the GPL didn't even get a mention in the discussions I read about it at the time, and almost certainly would not have merited a change on its own.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

again everything is booming out fast and I didn't save a link, but someone said the computer licensees that the OGL is based on all got an update around 2007 (I think if I remember they said that was v3.0) to include non revokable in it. If this is true the OGL is based on outdated wording.

But this can also mean that at that time, perpetual was meant to be irrevocable. And legal things are also usually ruled by the law at the time the contract was made... correct me if I am wrong regarding contracts...

 

[Vincent55]

they will try and cause as many problems for those who are making money off the game, and at the same time sell as much crap to players and lovers of the game in micro-transactions or small parts spread out over as much content as they can. Gone is the days of books like a rules Encylopedia or books with all you need for one setting. They will piecemeal out rules in small adventures leaving most up to DM's to fill out and do most of the work. And in the electronic area, we can see through their other games and others in the industry that you can get the basic stuff but have to pay for the cool looking things or a lock box or micro-transaction or both, getting a key to open a box that you might end up never getting. Books will be collector covers and even I dare say some may have exclusive content or possibly connected to that content online only. This is just me hypothesizing nothing has been stated as of yet, YET!!!!

 

[Ibrandul]

This is the big issue facing anyone who wants to make a deal with WotC-- even just implying that the OGL can be revoked demonstrates WotC is now a bad-faith actor, and cannot be trusted. It's the scorpion telling the frog "Don't worry, I won't sting you again."

Surely anyone who read (and found credible) the lawsuits filed in 2020 by Gale Force Nine and Weis & Hickman must already have concluded that WotC is perfectly willing to renege on contracts and licences in the most weasely imaginable ways if they think they might get away with it. The practices alleged in those filings are the very definition of "bad faith" activity (literally—both suits alleged breach of implied duty of good faith and fair dealing).

 

[Reynard]

This is as good a thread as any to ask this question:

What, if anything, does it mean that the OGL itself is copyright Wizards of the Coast? Does that impact this debate or legal situation in any way?

 

[TheSword]

I’m in the camp that thinks it is a net loss for the community because content is stifled. As I said, I love Pathfinder.

However I totally understand where WOC is coming from and why they want to do it. There is an argument that there are a large number of people happily producing 3pp content through DMGuild on much worse terms and I do think that 5e has resulted in a vastly bigger market for 3pp (evidenced by the fact that every IP has a 5e variant.)

The bigger companies should probably negotiate a deal that lies somewhere between ‘Completely free’ and ‘25% of revenue’ and consider it the cost of business.