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.

 

[Jack Daniel]

So if this was the exact same as the 1.0 expect it had the anti bigotry, and irrevocable added to it, would you guys still complain about 1.0 being deauthorized?

Uh, yes, actually. If you grant WotC their invented power to unilaterally deauthorize a perpetual license, they'll gladly take that and run all the way past unilaterally deauthorizing an irrevocable license. Different word, same word-game.

 

[Aldarc]

Because it’s the one non-negotiable for them. All the other provisions they’re willing to bend on, but their primary purpose is to get rid of OGL 1.0 at all costs.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Will someone do a GoFundMe or something and raise a few million and just go ahead and Sue WOTC first? This isn't ever going to end until a court of law makes a ruling.

The way the law is, WotC has to launch the lawsuit, in practical terms. So that doesn't really work.

 

[MockingBird]

I mean if the majority overwhelmingly says in the survey not to de-authorize 1.0a or make a 1.0b with "irrevocable" in it and to leave everything else alone they really have no choice. Only if they want to continue the hate and discontent will they ignore the majority.

 

[Mort]

It's also not open because it doesn't contain the concept of "Open Game Content", so isn't a share-alike licence.

Yep, that's big! One of the appeals of the OGL is that you can use content others have put into it, which is quite the draw.

This license is basically WoTC can use your stuff and anyone else's stuff but you're stuck with just your stuff. No sharing involved, that's pretty crummy!

 

[Charlaquin]

• 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.

Why would they support two OGL's.

Because they’ve spent the past two decades saying that’s exactly what would happen. Section 9 specifically says you can use any previous (“authorized”) version of the license and their own FAQ clarified that if they ever changed the license in a way you didn’t like, you could keep using the old one. That promise was the only reason the OGL was ever worth anything in the first place.

Everything under old OGL will still be forever under the old OGL, that is reasonable.

No. It isn’t.

 

[Haplo781]

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

YOU. ARE. NOT. A. PUBLIC. FIGURE. THIS. IS. A. FALSE. EQUIVALENCY.

 

[eyeheartawk]

I do, and if WotC hadn’t offered up an alternative then I would be more supportive. But I have, and it’s fair - as an outsider looking in. In fact it’s more than fair - it’s generous. But because it isn’t as generous as before people are talking like it’s worthless which isn’t the case.

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.

The "reasonable" alternative they are offering is literally worse in pretty much every way than what we have now.

Tell me, why wouldn't we be upset by that?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I mean if the majority overwhelmingly says in the survey not to de-authorize 1.0a or make a 1.0b with "irrevocable" in it and to leave everything else alone they really have no choice. Only if they want to continue the hate and discontent will they ignore the majority.

They do have a choice though.

This isn't a public survey.

And it's very easy for them to just talk around that. Also, most people don't seem to be aware of the OGL 1.0a issue as much as they were aware of other issues. So we'd need a lot of public education in the next two days lol.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Getting rid of OGL 1.0 is not the end of the world....depending on what OGL 2.0 has.

If OGL 2.0 is a good agreement AND contains an irrevocable clause....than to me that's a win. Old content doesn't have to shift, new content goes onto to the new license, with trust that it won't change, and all is well.

Of course, this depends on the criteria of 2.0, if its a bad agreement, than it simply stirs the pot.

My issue is that people are taking the approach of "unless 1.0 is made irrevocable, nothing can be ok".... and that is not the only good path forward.

Actually this is impossible... if they add the irrevocable clause it won't be OGL 1.0a anymore but at least OGL 1.0b.

So. They need to update ot now.