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.

​

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The English case says it depends on the circumstances, and the rest of the contract. The circumstances around the OGL and its overall wording strongly support non-revocability IMO.

yup... and that means there can be an argument... if you have the money to make it through all the hoops WotC lawyers can throw at you.

 

[Blue]

EDIT: Some big changes after @S'mon cleared up PI vs. IP. Big oops on my part.

My gut feeling is that WOC considers the IP theirs - particularly the stuff they have developed recently.

Mechanics can't be copyrighted, only the exact wording used. The OGL just lets them use the exact wording, so you can refer to a spell by name, etc. So there's a lot out there they couldn't touch anyway.

We know that D&D 5e is an order of magnitude bigger than it was then the OGL was released.

And a good part of that is due to the OGL. It took a fragmenting RPG mechanical landscape and focused people on using a core set of rules. Reading Ryan Dancey's essays about how it would have other game companies produce material that sold D&D core books and kept players in the D&D yard.

Ryan Dancey unfortunately no longer works for WOC and WOC can easily say circumstances have changed.

Contracts between businesses do not require that the original signee is still with the business. If my realtor retires, my house isn't unsold, and even if circumstances for the seller have changed that doesn't allow them to rewrite the contract that we all agreed on.

They can say that 5e is a fundamentally different product, and that they are spending money developing and promoting something that didn’t exist when the OGL was created.

Which is perfectly fine, and true, and irrelevant. They published 5e under the OGL willingly. They did not have to. Look at 4e, where they decided to publish under the GSL, which would have absolutely sidestepped all of this. They could publish OneD&D under another license without problem. But publishing "something new" under a license that explicitly contains protections against changing versions of that license doesn't negate those protection.

Also, there are plenty of products that are based off of D&D 3ed or 3.5 that are published under the OGL, like Pathfinder (1st). So even if 5e beign different was a point, changing the OGL which would affect all of them and render the point moot.

WOC/Hasbro almost certainly have lawyers who are advising them that there is either enough cover or possibility that they can win to make the change worth it.

Absolutely. That someone up the corporate chain said "we want to get royalties, enter the lair of the lawyers and see if they see a way to change it", and the lawyers came up with what they thought was the best way.

That doesn't mean that's the way it will shake out. There are civil cases all the time where lawyers on both sides think the law says they shall win.

I suspect they are gambling that the majority of 3pp will accept the new license - if grudgingly because it’s terms aren’t too onerous. Those that won’t because they are of a size that it is onerous are competition for D&D anyway and either aren’t producing content for 5e (Paizo) or aren’t big enough/are to dependent to find it worth fighting them (EN Publishing), Kobold Press etc etc.

I again agree - this having supposed to go out Jan 4th and take affect Jan 23rd is very much a bully move. Only-RPG publishers run on thin margins, they are leveraging their large-corporation lawyers.

Of course, since this was based on open source licenses, we might even get defenders like the EFF in addition to publishers. (Or if it threatens the GPL then IBM might get involved like they did with SCO.)

Cleverly by getting this out of the way now they are ensuring that the fallout happens now, rather than during the launch of whatever the One D&D playtest turns into. I’m not surprised it’s leaked early.

Leaking is perfect for them, I would not be surprised if they did it on purpose. Especially with the "we can be proven wrong" thing. It seems they are floating this, and if it gets huge backlash then they can disavow it as "new senior management didn't understand our wonderful customers, but they get it now. We want great games that come from diversity of choice. Woo!"

 

[S'mon]

IP (Intellectual Property) is not covered under the OGL, never was. That's things like the Mind Flayer and Elminster.

I think you're confusing IP with Product Identity (an invented term). There is a lot of IP - copyright work - licenced under the SRD. It's a literary work. That's protected by copyright.

FIREBALL
3rd-level evocation
Casting Time:1 action
Range:150 feet
Components:V, S, M (a tiny ball of bat guano and sulfur)
Duration:Instantaneous
A bright streak flashes from your pointing finger to a point you choose within range and then blossoms with a low roar into an explosion of flame. Each creature in a 20-foot-radius sphere centered on that point must make a Dexterity saving throw. A target takes 8d6 fire damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.

The fire spreads around corners. It ignites flammable objects in the area that aren’t being worn or carried.
At Higher Levels: When you cast this spell using a spell slot of 4th level or higher, the damage increases by 1d6 for each slot level above 3rd.

That Fireball text from the SRD is copyrighted.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies.
It looks like the indies are not relying on the licence but running for the exits, unless some thing comes out the "big players" negotiations.

 

[Blue]

I think you're confusing IP with Product Identity (an invented term). There is a lot of IP - copyright work - licenced under the SRD. It's a literary work. That's protected by copyright.

Dang, you're right - I was swapping PI and IP. Thanks for pointing this out.

 

[humble minion]

It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies.

Yep. A licence that can be revoked at will is functionally no licence at all.

 

[wingsandsword]

Of course, since this was based on open source licenses, we might even get defenders like the EFF in addition to publishers. (Or if it threatens the GPL then IBM might get involved like they did with SCO.)

Yeah, the SCO/Linux lawsuits have been on my mind the whole time.

They were completely baseless and without legal merit, entirely rooted in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) around Linux as a strategy to discredit Linux as an OS.

. . .and this scheme from WotC seems to be much the same for the OGL, an attempt to spread similar FUD around their own OGL.

If there's any real sign that this could potentially be applied to any other open source license agreements. . .yeah the EFF and others will get involved and Hasbro will be in for a much bigger fight than they probably expected. They were expecting to force Paizo and a few others to the table to negotiate specific license agreements, not for IBM to come knocking because they're threatening the legal underpinnings of a lot of software.

 

[Scribe]

It would appear to me that irrespective of the OGLs merits, unless it is defended in court now, or WoTC is forced to concede that it cannot be revoked then it has failed of its original purpose. That of keeping a version of "D&D in the wild" independent of the vagaries of corporate policies.
It looks like the indies are not relying on the licence but running for the exits, unless some thing comes out the "big players" negotiations.

That is kind of worrisome at this point...

 

[Prime_Evil]

Yeah, the SCO/Linux lawsuits have been on my mind the whole time.

They were completely baseless and without legal merit, entirely rooted in spreading FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) around Linux as a strategy to discredit Linux as an OS.

. . .and this scheme from WotC seems to be much the same for the OGL, an attempt to spread similar FUD around their own OGL.

If there's any real sign that this could potentially be applied to any other open source license agreements. . .yeah the EFF and others will get involved and Hasbro will be in for a much bigger fight than they probably expected. They were expecting to force Paizo and a few others to the table to negotiate specific license agreements, not for IBM to come knocking because they're threatening the legal underpinnings of a lot of software.

WoTC don't need to spread FUD. They just need Drivetrhurpg and Kickstarter to refuse to carry material released under OGL v.1.0a. That renders the entire point moot, regardless of any legal technicalities. Both of these companies depend upon good relations with WoTC for a substantial portion of their revenues. Therefore I think it will quickly become impossible to publish anything under the OGL v1.0a - even if it for a different game system unrelated to any WoTC IP. Neither Drivethrurpg nor Kickstarter will want to annoy one of their biggest revenue sources.

 

[mamba]

I think it will quickly become impossible to publish anything under the OGL v1.0a - even if it for a different game system unrelated to any WoTC IP. Neither Drivethrurpg nor Kickstarter will want to annoy one of their biggest revenue sources.

I am unaware of WotC kickstarting anything