Statement on OGL from WotC

Wizards of the Coast has made a short statement regarding the ongoing rumors surrounding OneD&D and the Open Gaming License. In a short response to Comicbook.com, the company said "We will continue to support the thousands of creators making third-party D&D content with the release of One D&D in 2024. While it is certain our Open Game License (OGL) will continue to evolve, just as it has since its inception, we're too early in the development of One D&D to give more specifics on the OGL or System Reference Document (SRD) at this time."

Dungeons & Dragons Clarifies Support for Third-Party Material as New Edition Draws Near

Wizards of the Coast has responded to rumors of changes to the Open Game License and System [...]

comicbook.com

It's not clear what WotC means when they say that the OGL will 'continue to evolve' -- while there have been two versions of the license released over the years, each is non-rescindible so people are free to use whichever version of the license they wish. Indeed, that is written into the license itself -- "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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."

During the D&D 4th Edition era, WotC published a new, separate license called the Game System Licence (GSL). While it was used by third party publishers, it was generally upopular.

 

[darjr]

Mike talks about the subject. Mentioning this thread and Russ' podcast alot. Refering to them as good resources.

Mike talks about the statement a bit after mentioning Russ' post and comment as good resources.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

Indeed. The only authority you might bow to is that of WotC, in which case they've produced three editions: 3e, 4e, and 5e - they've stated that 3.5e, Essentials, and the upcoming OneD&D are all not new editions.

But as noted in the quote from Shannon Appelcline up-thread, the community view was quite different (even in the case of Essentials, which has a much stronger case to be the same edition than 3.5e did). It remains to be seen, of course, what the community view will make of OneD&D.

And the Community can be wrong about that.

 

[FlyingChihuahua]

This is exactly what people predicted would happen if WotC made a statement to address the "controversy", and why many of us expected that WotC would just stay silent and not deign to acknowledge the matter.

And them not just letting this dumb rumor go the way of the birds says more negative things much more plausibly about the company then whatever the conspiracy people are peddling does.

 

[ElliottBalding]

What's the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a? I can't find 1.0 anywhere to compare it. I know its old but thought it wouldn't be as hard to find as it is.

 

[Nylanfs]

It's a bit about trademarks and trade dress IIRC.

 

[wingsandsword]

What's the difference between OGL 1.0 and OGL 1.0a? I can't find 1.0 anywhere to compare it. I know its old but thought it wouldn't be as hard to find as it is.

As I recall, someone compared the two once and it was a matter of hyphenating one word that was supposed to be hyphenated.

They released 1.0. . .then realized there was a minor typo, corrected it, and released it as 1.0a shortly thereafter which was substantially the same but had a very minor proofreading/grammar issue corrected.

 

[Jack Daniel]

1.0a clarifies "trademarks and licensed trademarks" where 1.0 only mentions "trademarks."

 

[ElliottBalding]

Based on my reading and watching videos after the most recent leak of what the "OGL" will be, it seems like WoTC absolutely have the ability to revoke all previous OGL's. Perpetual means no specified end date, not that it is irrevocable. You can use "any authorised OGL." 1.1 says that 1.0a is no longer authorised.

 

[qstor]

As I said on the other thread, perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable. Version a includes a numbered paragraph allowing WotC to modify the license. I'm a lawyer but not an IP lawyer

 

[Staffan]

As I said on the other thread, perpetual doesn't mean irrevocable. Version a includes a numbered paragraph allowing WotC to modify the license. I'm a lawyer but not an IP lawyer

The relevant quote is "Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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."

That's pretty much the text this whole debate revolves around. And we really won't get an answer until Wizards goes through with their madness and tries to take someone to court over it (or someone takes them to court).