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...

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

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

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.


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".


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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad


Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
not the way I read it, see ‘VTT publishers’, not publishers of VTT content, which came before
  • VTT content. Any updates to the OGL will still allow any creator to publish content on VTTs and will still allow VTT publishers to use OGL content on their platform.
It allows with any updates(read OGL 2.0) to allow any creator to publish content on VTTs. It doesn't specify which OGLs. OGL 2.0 could say 1.0a and 1.0 can be published on any VTT, but OGL 2.0 can only be published on DBB. That satisfies what they said. Allowing VTT publishes to use OGL(1.0 and 1.0a) satisfies the second portion as well. They can still restrict OGL 2.0 and that statement will still be true.

We need to see the language, because there could still be a snake in the grass.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
Supporter
The license is still de-authorized.

In the name of factual reporting, they don't say that.

They fail to address this point, and so we assume they will try to de-authorize. But nowhere in these statements are there words to the effect of, "You will not be able to publish new material under previous versions of the OGL."

Admittedly, failure to address it is failure to address the elephant in the room, but it doesn't actually inform you of the disposition of the elephant.
 

overgeeked

B/X Known World
It was posted because people wanted to know if he was a real person at WOTC. He is and has a high-level position over D&D, so that should help people believe he's speaking credibly on behalf of the company.
Anyone know why the names don’t match? Kyle Fields is a portmanteau of two people’s names.

ETA: Ah. They fixed it.

ETA2: Getting your own name wrong is not a great way to garner trust and confidence from others.
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
It was posted because people wanted to know if he was a real person at WOTC. He is and has a high-level position over D&D, so that should help people believe he's speaking credibly on behalf of the company.
The fact that it was in a post from their official communication channel wasn't enough?

And did it actually matter? Whether it's a person or the dog from MoviePass, the message is the same (and terrible).
 

mamba

Legend
No I am not, and the fact that you couldn't be bothered to check says a lot about your food faith or lack thereof.
well the OP said, so that was what I was responding to. If you have something useful to contribute let me know, otherwise I am more interested in the discussion than your namecalling
 


Scribe

Legend
Insert Braveheart_Hold.gif here.

Holding Hold The Line GIF

so where does that leave us, you trust the 1.0a if they say they are not deauthorizing it? Doesn’t sound like it…

They are going to have to release a legally binding statement indicating that the 3.5 and 5.0 SRD's will forever be irrevocably available under the original terms of the existing OGL.

Till then? They are liars hiding behind smoke screens to get bad actors to defend them.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top