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.

​

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if the goal is to prepare the way for SLAPP suits and make it like Fair Use, where you're technically allowed to do a bunch of things but they have enough of a pretext of wrongdoing to force legal action you can't afford-- WOTC could maintain the legal position that they have this right as a tool to force litigation and settlement, Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with. If they insist that the OGL is being violated, that should be grounds to start a legal run around in any given instance they please.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Admittedly, I wouldn't be shocked if the goal is to prepare the way for SLAPP suits and make it like Fair Use, where you're technically allowed to do a bunch of things but they have enough of a pretext of wrongdoing to force legal action you can't afford-- WOTC could maintain the legal position that they have this right, Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with.

I mean they already have the legal team on retainer right?

 

[Ondath]

...Hasbro has the deepest pockets of anyone they'd go to court with.

There is one possible way this might be false: If it looks like OGL v1.0a being unilaterally revoked would lead to implications for open source software licenses, then WotC might find themselves opposed by a large number of tech groups.

 

[GracefulBreath]

I think it's worth noting that the new OGL is clearly ignoring the original intent of the OGL regardless of whether or not we believe the recent leaks to be true.

From the same Q&A:
Q: Is Open Game Content limited to just "the game mechanic"?
A: No. The definition of Open Game Content also provides for "any additional content clearly identified as Open Game Content." You can use the Open Game License for any kind of material you wish to distribute using the terms of the License, including fiction, artwork, maps, computer software, etc.
Wizards, however, rarely releases Open Content that is not just mechanics.

however, from the OGLs, SRDs, & One D&D staff blog post on D&D Beyond back in december:
Other types of content, like videos and video games, are only possible through the Wizards of the Coast Fan Content Policy or a custom agreement with us. To clarify: Outside of printed media and static electronic files, the OGL doesn’t cover it.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

There is one possible way this might be false: If it looks like OGL v1.0a being unilaterally revoked would lead to implications for open source software licenses, then WotC might find themselves opposed by a large number of tech groups.

again this isn't a computer company, and as such the programmer base would need to argue that it effects them, and then want to throw good money at the problem when they can ignore it for free.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yeah, they could also find themselves supported by some other interests as well though, walled gardens are big money, or it might just not matter since its not in the tech space in the first place.

 

[Charlaquin]

maybe
I'm not sure that a lawyer arguing "This word means this and that word means that and this is the word they used and that isn't" gets contradicted by the other lawyer arguing "Yes, they used the word that means that, but they meant this and I have a former employee from that time to say what they meant" is going to mean much.

If that does work then it does, but I don't see it in my very limited experience. However also the Judge is the DM... he can rewrite the rules

But it’s not just “this is what I meant when I said that.” The wording was based on that of open-source software licenses at the time, and conversations with prospective publishers included reassurances that the license couldn’t later be pulled out from under them. And WotC has continued to perpetuate that understanding of the meaning of the license in their own FAQ. IANAL, but it seems to me like WotC has benefited from creating the perception that they can’t take the license away, and are now trying to take it away anyway.

 

[Vildara]

Hasn't it been firmly established that game mechanics can not be copyrighted and are thus fair game? So as long as I am not publishing Elminster Goes To Waterdeep, how does this really affect me?

 

[Charlaquin]

Yeah, the basic problem is this:
WotC: "We declare the 1.0a license no longer authorized"
Small publisher about to sink $1000 into writing/arting/editing say a PF2 supplement: "uh..."
WotC: <glares legally>

Exactly.

 

[Ondath]

again this isn't a computer company, and as such the programmer base would need to argue that it effects them, and then want to throw good money at the problem when they can ignore it for free.

While this isn't a computer company, from what I understand the way the OGL was worded was based heavily on the open source licenses of the time. So if WotC says that their open license on tabletop games can be declared unauthorised and replaced with a walled garden, the same could apply for open source software licenses. Given that an unimaginable amount of technological infrastructure rests on open source software in one way or another, I think there would be a lot of people who wouldn't ignore the problem and want to oppose WotC's interpretation of how open licenses work.