WotC Talks OGL... Again! Draft Coming Jan 20th With Feedback Survey; v1 De-Auth Still On

Following last week's partial walk-back on the upcoming Open Game Licence terms, WotC has posted another update about the way forward.

The new update begins with another apology and a promise to be more transparent. To that end, WotC proposes to release the draft of the new OGL this week, with a two-week survey feedback period following it.

WotC Walks Back Some OGL Changes, But Not All

Wizards of the Coast has finally made a statement regarding the OGL. The statement says that the leaked version was a draft designed to solicit feedback and that they are walking back some problematic elements, but don't address others--most notably that the current OGL v1.0a is still being...

www.enworld.org

They also list a number of points of clarity --

• Videos, accessories, VTT content, DMs Guild will not be affected by the new license, none of which is related to the OGL
• The royalties and ownership rights clauses are, as previously noted, going away

OGL v1 Still Being 'De-Authorized'
However, OGL v1.0a still looks like it's being de-authorized. As with the previous announcement, that specific term is carefully avoided, and like that announcement it states that previously published OGL v1 content will continue to be valid; however it notably doesn't mention that the OGL v1 can be used for content going forward, which is a de-authorization.

The phrase used is "Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a." -- as noted, this does not make any mention of future content. If you can't publish future content under OGL 1.0a, then it has been de-authorized. The architect of the OGL, Ryan Dancey, along with WotC itself at the time, clearly indicated that the license could not be revoked or de-authorized.

While the royalty and ownership clauses were, indeed, important to OGL content creators and publishers such as myself and many others, it is also very important not to let that overshadow the main goal: the OGL v1.0a.

Per Ryan Dancey in response this announcement: "They must not. They can only stop the bleeding by making a clear and simple statement that they cannot and will not deauthorize or revoke v1.0a".

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...

www.enworld.org

Amend At-Will
Also not mentioned is the leaked draft's ability to be amended at-will by WotC. An agreement which can be unilaterally changed in any way by one party is not an agreement, it's a blank cheque. They could simply add the royalties or ownership clauses back in at any time, or add even more onerous clauses.

All-in-all this is mainly just a rephrasing of last week's announcement addressing some of the tonal criticisms widely made about it. However, it will be interesting to see the new draft later this week. I would encourage people to take the feedback survey and clearly indicate that the OGL v1.0a must be left intact.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

If old litigious TSR didn't sue Wizardry and every subsequent CRPG, like ever, I don't think WOTC will for people having vorpal blades in things or whatever.

Since WotC is apparently not using their industry-leading AI to DM games, maybe it can design a time machine so they can go back and sue Lewis Carroll?

 

[mamba]

The SRD contains names and ideas as well. Look at the D&D movie coming out. Owlebears, Tieflings, Druids, Bards, specific spells, Gelatinous Cubes, and on and on. All of which are things governed in some way or another by the OGL and the SRD. It's not just mechanics.

Druids and Bards, yeah, never heard of those before D&D. The name Tiefling you probably have a point with, no idea, the concept is definitely not WotC’s though.

Spells, oh boy, yes, definitely some, most are not however and we can do fine without those few.

Gelatinous Cube is just a large amoeba, so there goes that too. Bear with feathers, no idea if we have them in some mythology, worst case we go without them or create a hawkbear.

You were saying?

 

[Maxperson]

Board Game? Not going to be SRD.

It is if it uses specific monster names and magic items that are in the SRD

Card Game? Not going to be SRD.

Ditto.

Gacha? Not SRD.

What is Gacha?

TV Show? Not SRD.

Again, if it uses a lot of SRD named things it will be.

Read the OGL 1.0a Legal Information section 1. definitions. It includes derivative material in any form in which the work can be recast, transformed or adapted. Movies and board games fall into that.

 

[Jer]

But again, everything in the SRD that isn't denied in the small Legal Information section is usable as is under OGL 1.0a. They don't even need to change the names. And the more names used by D&D that you can use, the more it will appeal to fans of the game.

I think you're missing a key point, which is that in order to use the OGL you have to accept the OGL. And that allows you to use Wizards copyright. But you can go ahead and make your fantasy movie without using the OGL at all and use lots of stuff that's in that SRD because Wizards does not actually own the concepts, just the expression of those concepts.

You can't use one of Wizards stories - that would get you into trouble because you'd be infringing on their copyright. So your movie can't be an adaptation of the Rise of Tiamat adventure path because you'd be stepping into copyright infringement. But you can write a fantasy movie where a group of hardscrabble heroes work to prevent a dragon cult from summoning their dragon-demon goddess into the world because you can't copyright a generic plotline like that (which is how Hollywood stays in business).

If Wizards really controlled things to the level you think they do the recent Willow TV series would be getting Disney sued by Wizards. It's quite simply the most D&D bit of entertainment I've seen in a long time. But it won't and Wizards wouldn't even think of it because the D&D of it is just generic fantasy tropes and public domain monsters wrapped up into a coherent form. Like the SRD.

 

[mamba]

Without the OGL if someone makes a "D&D" movie with all of those things in it, they're going to get sued faster than you can say "WotC."

you will get the same result with the OGL, D&D is a trademark

The D&D movie coming out contains many things governed by the OGL, since they exist in the SRD that is only usable through the OGL.

and most of them are in the public domain. That they are also in the SRD makes no difference

 

[Maxperson]

Druids and Bards, yeah, never heard of those before D&D. The name Tiefling you probably have a point with, no idea, the concept is definitely not WotC’s though.

Spells, oh boy, yes, definitely some, most are not however and we can do fine without those few.

Gelatinous Cube is just a large amoeba, so there goes that too. Bear with feathers, no idea if we have them in some mythology, worst case we go without them or create a hawkbear.

You were saying?

I'm saying that individually you are correct with those items. Too many of those items together leaves that realm and enters into D&D copyrighted territory.

 

[Maxperson]

you will get the same result with the OGL, D&D is a trademark

Check again. D&D was in quotes for a reason. They wouldn't be using D&D.

 

[mamba]

Both are in the SRD which is usable only through the OGL, so yes.

I can definitely have a vorpal sword, frost brand maybe not by name, but in function

 

[ValamirCleaver]

The most D&D thing ever produced is The Legend of Vox Machina.

No, it was Record of Lodoss War. The ironic thing being that it was directly based on the author's actual D&D campaign.

I've been vocal on my support of Pathfinders Wrath of the Righteous. Hell, just look at Minsc! Where did he come from? A video game!

I'm more partial to Wrath of the Righteous. Yeah, I agree Wizbro screwed up by not making more of their obvious licensing opportunities the past 23 years.

 

[mamba]

Do we? I doubt it. Corporate fear, greed or more probably, "just to be safe" is what often motivates this sort of thing.

yeah, and so far using it was free, so everyone did. Going forward however… in either case the OGL does not scare anyone away from doing so without it