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.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

so if someone publishe my personal facebook and twitter with my friends and family link that is Okay?

Do you not use or know anything about how social networks work?!

Facebook accounts have all sorts of controls for who can and can't see your page. If your page there is 100 percent visible to everyone you're doing it wrong.

And on Twitter if you're nervous about that you can set a private account, where only people you allow to follow you can see any of your content.

 

[Morrus]

LinkedIn is a social network that focuses on professional networking and career development. You can use LinkedIn to display your resume, search for jobs, and enhance your professional reputation by posting updates and interacting with other people.Sep 6, 2019

Drop it please. That goes for everybody.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

@GMforPowergamers just seems to feel that posting an employee’s (not a celebrity or an influencer’s) CV on a public forum for the purpose of people who hate his company to pile on is a bit stalkerish. I haven’t decided if it is stalking but it’s definitely a bit creepy and bit distasteful.

that is exactly my feeling (my honest feeling not some 'bad faith' made up one)

edit: redacted Morrus got his red text right above me or even her old apt, but her mothers house.

 

[mamba]

Not being available doesn't mean (to my understanding) that it is no longer in effect with regard to things which took advantage of it when it was.

WotC's use of revocation, insofar as I've always read it, has been to mean that the OGL v1.0a will no longer be available for anyone to use. It doesn't mean that works previously released under it are suddenly no longer bound by the terms of the license.

complete agreement

 

[BMaC]

In response to this latest missive from Hasbro, I just bought Kobold Black Flag tshirts for my whole group.

 

[Bravesteel25]

This is, essentially, a reframing of what they already said last week. I've gone through a lot of back and forth, even on these boards, but I think I just don't care anymore. They are at least allowing currently published OGL content to stand. Most publishers will surely move on to ORC, while a few may bite the bullet and try to make a name for themselves within WotC's strict OGL terms. I guess I just don't care anymore.

Much like working for Games Workshop and watching them nuke the Old World killed that brand for me, it looks like WotC has done similarly here when it comes to the D&D brand.

The king is dead. Long live the ORC.

 

[Mannahnin]

One thing would be good enough for me: No deauthorization of the 1.0a OGL.

That's what I want and it's all I want. I don't need them to release 1D&D under the original OGL, and I don't care what license they do release it under (if any). If they want to put out a license that demands your firstborn child, that's fine with me. I doubt they'll get anyone to sign it, but that's not my problem.

But the original OGL was meant to be valid forever, and Wizards has reaffirmed that commitment, in writing, for twenty years. People signed onto the OGL (which involves giving up significant rights) on the basis of that commitment.

Wizards has already done a tremendous amount of damage simply by suggesting they plan to renege on that. Ideally they would release a new version of the OGL that makes it explicitly irrevocable, but I don't expect that. All I ask is a public statement that the 1.0a OGL will remain fully authorized and valid for the material already released under it (the 3E and 5E SRDs).

Exactly this.

If the existing work is unaffected, the license is still valid, and you can still publish under it.

I don't think your latter premise follows from the first. WotC's new statement, and their Friday statement, both assure us that PAST products are ok, but are careful to say nothing about any future products. This implies that the intent is to still de-authorize, in some manner, OGL 1.0a going forward. We don't know yet how they'll officially communicate or attempt to implement that. But it seems the clear implication. That they're not going to sue you over stuff you already published, but they're not going to allow people to keep publishing under those terms for new products.

Disagreeing with someone’s behavior is not gaslighting. Gaslighting keeps getting tossed about every time someone disagrees with someone else’s opinion. It’s a specific type of psychology abuse where you try and cause a person to feel insane. Do you think your use of the term is proportional?

Gaslighting is more specifically trying to subvert the victim's connection to reality by asserting, to their face, that reality is not what the victim can see with their own eyes.

GMforpowergamers asserted that referencing a senior executive's publicly-posted resume for context about their management style or priorities is "cyberstalking". A crime. The act of stalking and harassing an individual via the internet. This is a falsehood. No one here is harassing Mr. Brincks. No one here, as far as we can tell, has hacked his accounts or obtained his private contact info to harass him with. Further, GMforpowergamers accused Ruinexplorer of "doxxing". Another offensive action involving publicizing private contact information of a victim for the purposes of enabling harassment. These are both absolutely false characterizations of what's happened in this thread. Do they amount to gaslighting? He's telling people to their faces that they're doing something they absolutely did not do.

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?

Well, that's the thing, right? Both today's and Friday's statements only reassure people that our PAST publications are safe. Not that we may continue to publish anything new under OGL 1.0a. This leaves a strong implication that WotC intends to somehow still nullify/revoke/deauthorize 1.0a for any future usage.

 

[overgeeked]

In response to this latest missive from Hasbro, I just bought Kobold Black Flag tshirts for my whole group.

There are shirts?!

 

[mamba]

The thing about using proper channels is it silences dissent as the people wanting to silence dissent are, mysteriously, always in charge of those proper channels.

so you are silencing yourself out of fear that someone on their end might?

By all means, use ‘improper’ channels, but not using the survey seems pretty foolish

 

[Micah Sweet]

No. If the license is not revoked or deauthorized, people can continue to publish under it. They have no way to change the terms of the license. They can't change OGL 1.0a to read "Only applies to products published prior to January 20, 2023." If OGL 1.0a continues to exist, it continues to exist.

Sounds good. How about they actually  say that?