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.

​

 

[Erdric Dragin]

Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.

Intent matters.

 

[Drake2000]

Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.

Intent matters.

That could very well be. However, it will take years of pre-trial motions, discovery, witness testimony and possible injunctions before a judge can make that ruling, and someone will have to pay for all of that.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.

Intent matters.

Presenting something to threaten the indie rank and file into line via a lawsuit that would ruin them even if they could easily win also matters.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Pretty sure if it were taken to court, a judge would rule against WotC due to the fact that every single company had every right to believe under the pretense that WotC couldn't revoke it.

Intent matters.

That could very well be. However, it will take years of pre-trial motions, discovery, witness testimony and possible injunctions before a judge can make that ruling, and someone will have to pay for all of that.

It is possible if you get a really good argument to shut it down with a pre trial motion. HOWEVER, wotc lawyers get to argue against it and there is as much up in the air as there is concrete... so I wouldn't bet my farm on it.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is super shakey ground

Here's something I've been thinking about. Any publisher who decides to fight this is going to have to be super-comfy with their own implementation of the license and with Hasbro lawyers combing through all their published materials looking for violations/breaches. And in many cases, I assume those potential issues will themselves fall within gray areas subject to interpretation by a court.

I would not have felt super-comfy with any such process during my time running the RPG business at FFG.

 

[Reynard]

Here's something I've been thinking about. Any publisher who decides to fight this is going to have to be super-comfy with their own implementation of the license and with Hasbro lawyers combing through all their published materials looking for violations/breaches. And in many cases, I assume those potential issues will themselves fall within gray areas subject to interpretation by a court.

I would not have felt super-comfy with any such process during my time running the RPG business at FFG.

I wonder if there has ever been a case where one publisher called out another for using closed content from an OGL product.

 

[blakesha]

Here's my thoughts on the matter, for what they're worth.

The original license was an agreement between WotC and the user. At the moment that the user published a product under that license, the license was authorized. And perpetually so. There is no revoking that authorization, particularly when (sect 9) it is mention that changes in the license allow the user to use previous version of the license if they so wish.

This means that any previously publish work under the OGL is fine providing that you don't agree to the new license, because the new license says that the user agrees to alter previously existing licenses how WotC wants them altered.

If you have published materials under the OGL and want to publish under the new OGL, simply create a new legal entity that does not have the authority to speak for any of your other legal entities, so that the change in the license that WotC wants to happen isn't able to happen.

The OGL is perpetual, and you can use any version you like, UNLESS you agree to what WotC wants to change by publishing and agreeing with the new version.

joe b.

But section 9 DOESNT state what you are saying. It says you can continue to sell EXISTING works through future revisions of the OGL

 

[blakesha]

All the arguments come down to "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License." in sect 9.

Every publication released under the OGL is released under an authorized version of the license because every version WoTC released is an authorized one.

Creating a new version of the OGL that "un-authorizes" previous versions for that user requires the user's agreement, in that new license.

No new, unsigned, unagreed-upon license removes the prior section 4: "In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." Because it's not a contract until both sides agree to the terms, and the contract was already made with the terms set out at the time when a product is published under the OGL.

All of the versions of the OGLs are authorized until one agrees with WotC that they aren't anymore by making a new contract with them by publishing under the new OGL.

joe b.

Only for EXISTING works. Once the 1.1 drops you cannot go back and use 1.0 to create NEW works

 

[blakesha]

I would think his opinion would matter though because of his role in the OGL and because WOTC has asserted something about what the intent was (and that assertion runs counter to most peoples understanding of the intentions of the OGL).

All respect to Ryan, but his opinion actually doesn't matter at all. Just an opinion, he could advocate for what he could attest to the mindset of WotC at the time, but that is completely irrelevant now

 

[blakesha]

Quick question for those a little more knowledgeable:

How the Open Gaming License ever actually been "Open". As in owned by someone NOT WotC?