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.

​

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

Since Discord isn't technically public, I don't think its right to out a creator who hasn't made a public statement. I just mentioned it to let everyone know that the lines are already being drawn.

I understand your position, but this reminds me of the scene in Fight Club where Jack is discussing car recalls and how a 'major manufacturer' calculates whether to do a recall or pay out damages. The lady is horrified and asks what company this is and he says 'A major one'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Alternatively buy a Pathfinder Beginner Box and a Starfinder Beginner Box and donate them to a local library or school game club. Same money and longer impact.

good idea... we should all do that this week Thank you for the idea

 

[Maxperson]

@Snarf Zagyg Question. With Dancy's statements and the statement in the OGL FAQ that people could always just use a prior version of the OGL that they liked, would/could Detrimental Reliance kick in?

 

[Alzrius]

for $50 I would buy it today even if I didn't play it... not a fan of pathfinder, but I want to support them today more then ever. Just in case.

Fun fact: if I remember correctly, the previous Pathfinder video game (i.e. Kingmaker) came with a special PDF-only tabletop adventure (but only if you bought it via Steam).

 

[Simplicity]

Pathfinder: Wrath of the Righteous is by far the best D&D game to come out since the Infinity Engine (BG, Planescape, etc.). It goes to mythic levels, so your horse can have 40 armor class, crane kick, and deflect arrows. It's a blast. And I would full-throatedly support it, and did... And then world events occurred and it became relevant that it's from a Russian developer (based out of Cyprus, because that's what they do). Do with that info what you will.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

@Snarf Zagyg Question. With Dancy's statements and the statement in the OGL FAQ that people could always just use a prior version of the OGL that they liked, would/could Detrimental Reliance kick in?

I mean ... maybe? Look, the interplay of various provisions can be difficult. For example, and off the top of my head-
1. This could fall under promissory estoppel (unambiguous promise, reasonable reliance, and injury due to reliance).
2. Or it could be considered a "gap filler" given the lack of language regarding revocation; in other words, while there are majority and minority rules about licenses, those usually are used because the two parties are arguing over it and it wasn't contemplated at the time; here, while extrinsic evidence (parol evidence) is disfavored, it might be considered to some extent.
3. Or maybe, as I have seen, some courts would convert is from a unilateral to a bilateral contract due to the consideration section- that means that the operative provision is the termination provision (since you can't unilaterally terminate a bilateral contract- just breach it).

Point is- there's a lot of different ways to approach this, and anyone who is 100% confident has never gotten bench-slapped by a judge before.

 

[mamba]

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?

that should just mean that no one but WotC can change the license terms

 

[Simplicity]

that should just mean that no one but WotC can change the license terms

That is not what it means at all. It protects who can copy the license and when. It prevents others from claiming copyright. WotC has the copyright of the license. And they have granted the right to duplicate the license when you are producing OGC.

 

[mamba]

That is not what it means at all. It protects who can copy the license and when. It prevents others from claiming copyright. WotC has the copyright of the license. And they have granted the right to duplicate the license when to produce OGC.

anyone can copy the license, see its widespread use even by RPGs that do not use material from the SRD

To cut to the chase / answer the original question: it is entirely meaningless in this debate

 

[Simplicity]

anyone can copy the license, see its widespread use even by RPGs that do not use material from the SRD

To cut to the chase / answer the original question: it is entirely meaningless in this debate

That's not entirely accurate either. You can reproduce it if you have the copyright holder's permission. You get their permission by agreeing to the terms of the license. And this actually has enormous consequences for the rights towards your own material. You give up stuff by copying it.

The OGL was intended to be the beginning of an open source gaming movement non-specific to the SRD. So other companies would use it to open their systems as well.