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

I'm far from an apologist, but I'd be willing to have a true Open License that is modifiable through some sort of agreement process to modernize it. It should be modifiable in some way, but not revokable. I'm willing to see what they come up with as long as they agree that content is ok.

I'm also pretty sure that they can pull OneDND from the OGL and still allow it for other versions, which is a tactic I could see them implementing.
You are being too reasonable. This thread is for the outraged and aggrieved 😉
 

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.
I honestly don't know what their position is at this point, which seems like a problem.

  • Your OGL 1.0a content. Nothing will impact any content you have published under OGL 1.0a. That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about the specific language or terms of their new license?
 




Haplo781

Legend
Linked in is not social media.

Okay.


So again, we're supposed to condone going after him on an assumption.

How about we wait for confirmation before turning the internet loose on him? Wasn't there supposed to be a video out today talking about the mastermind?

I'm mad too, but I'm not so far gone as to aim the lash at anything the moves without knowing whether it's a valid target. We as a group need to get a grip because it'd be real easy to screw around and do some crap that could get us labeled bad actors and possible rightly so.
How about you chill the heck out?

Nobody is trying to cancel the dude. We just want context.
 



This is the bare minimum I'm willing to accept from there. If they want to move forward alone without all the creators, they can do so. At least everything that was published in the past is not nuked out of existence.

But the problem is that trust has been broken. If they can change the OGL now, they can change it five years down the road. Who will want to put his/her eggs in their basket again?

They can just put irrevocable in the new license.
Maybe it ends up beeing all that changes. So yes, we don't want the old 1.0a. We at least want 1.0b with irrevocable put in.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top