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.

​

 

[Art Waring]

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

No it isn't. Ryan Dancey's testimony in court would establish the true intent of the 1.0a OGL, he was a part of the company when it was drafted and his words go a long way in the 3pp OGL community. Dancey is the furthest thing from irrelevant right now.

 

[wingsandsword]

I hope he's right. But does he have any authority other than his past employment with Wizards to make such a claim? Is he a lawyer? Does he know court precedents?

He's the person who thought up the OGL, spearheaded it's development, and approved it for release when he was the Vice President for Dungeons and Dragons at WotC in 2000.

He's very qualified to speak about what the intent of WotC was with regards to the OGL 1.0a and what WotC thought could and could not be done with the OGL at the time they granted it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It's a long time until release and gamers have short memories. Unless the big players that WotC is courting now balk, 1D&D will have strong 3PP support.

Years of edition wars tell me that gamers most certainly do not have short memories.

 

[Reynard]

Years of edition wars tell me that gamers most certainly do not have short memories.

Their wallets certainly do.

 

[qstor]

I just wish the word "irrevocable" appeared in the OGL v1.0!

He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable

 

[GMforPowergamers]

He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable

if we had a time machine I am sure Ryan would have put that and more in the license...

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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?

What is “game mechanics” has not been defined legally.

 

[Morrus]

He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable

He didn’t write it! Lawyers wrote it, he oversaw it.

 

[S'mon]

He's not a lawyer and there's an English case that says a perpetual license isn't irrevocable

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.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

He didn’t write it! Lawyers wrote it, he oversaw it.

and that case had not happened yet at the time. In no way is this Ryan did something wrong, or the lawyer under him did anything wrong. They based it on Open license's in the year 1999 and 2000. The problem is that in 2003 2005 2007 ect the licenses did not keep up with other open licenses being updated.
post 2008 I would argue that WotC didn't WANT to update it to be MORE open and everlasting.