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.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I emphatically disagree. The existing OGL has worked just fine for over twenty years; saying that it could be improved upon by making it more restrictive strikes me as being inherently contradictory.

I don't say they do. But I can see some clasues like explicit NFT and overly kids unfriendliness as a positive clause.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I can literally find hundreds of example of both of these things in like 4 seconds.

At least disney can always say, that they never approved such things.

 

[LuisCarlos17f]

You can't sell honey with a "vinegar face". A business is not only the product you are selling, but also the prestige of the brand, and the trust by the customers.

My suggestion is allowing 3PPs to publish and sell in a special space within D&D-One, because this is the best window/showcase to promote their IPs. Maybe paying royalties to publish ten pages explaining the lore of the settings would be a good investment for advertising. The players then would search the rest of the titles by these 3PPs.

Disney wants to create its own TTRPG of Marvel Superheroes, and I wouldn't be totally surprised if Epic Games created other d20 system to be used in a VTT within Fortnite: Creative Mode 2.0. Magic: the Gathering will be the king of the (physical) collectable card games, but in the digital market Disney has got Marvel Snap and Lorcana, for example, Blizzard has got Heartstone. Can you realise? Here Hasbro could face serious rivals, and it is fault by nobody.

Pathfinder: Kingmaker was one of the free videogames gifted by Epic Games Launcher, and also other videogames based in Shadowrun. If money can b made with the comingsoon Baldur's Gate 3, then others could try to follow the same path.

One of the strategies to stop the income losses by the piracy is to sell different products based in the same franchise.

Hasbro has to remember there are lots of 3PPs very happy creating titles with the Paizo's open licence. They aren't the only option, they aren't the "only coke bottle in the dessert". They are the master of the market, but this is not a monopoly.

The avarice breaks the bag. Even when there are customers willing to pay, to spend their money, we don't want to feel we are being tricked to pay more than really necessary. We don't suck our thumb ( = we aren't little children). We are not compulsive buyers. We have to pay taxes and bills. We have to think twice or more about the money spent for our hobbies.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I can literally find hundreds of example of both of these things in like 4 seconds.

And none of them (NONE OF THEM) are licensed by Disney, or can claim a license from Disney.

Which means that if the shinola ever hits the fan from a PR perspective, Disney doesn't take the hit.

Also? Something tells me you didn't take four seconds ... it was probably in your browser history. #NOTJUDGING(JUDGING)

 

[Reynard]

I'm surprised there's still confusion about this (if that's what it is).

The issue is this: WotC doesn't have the right to stop people from using OGL 1.0a and material released under it. That's it. The fact that they are trying and that they are obfuscation the purpose and methods tells you what kind of company they are.

At this point I don't care about OGL 2.x at all, and neither should anyone else. Wiggling around the edges of the new OGL is just another lie. They released 3.0, 3.5, 5.0, Modern into the wild. Let them ask a court if they cam take it back and watch their entire copyright claim house of cards crash down.

All they had to do was nothing and they couldn't even do that right.

 

[bostonmyk]

It's also business to the folks whose business depends on it.

The idea that "it's not personal, it's business" is silly in this context. The publishers are angry from a business context because Wizards is trying to do something that is at best an unethical deceptive business practice and at worst something that they're legally not allowed to do in the first place but can tie small businesses up in lawsuits for years and prevent them from publishing.

That's business! It's not "let's get mad at Wizards because they're big meanies!" It's "Wizards is engaging in destructive business practices to a whole lot of publishers in the ttrpg field". This is a huge deal! And it feels like some of Wizard's defenders do not understand exactly how destructive what Wizards is proposing actually is.

Read what I was responding to...sigh. I'm not siding with Wizards.

Thanks

Mike

 

[mamba]

Yeah, I think that’s precisely their angle here.

let’s face it, most people wanting to provide feedback have one, minus the 50k or so who quit over it, and at 13M accounts, that makes no difference to the count

 

[DavyGreenwind]

Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?

Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?

Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?

 

[DMZ2112]

The new license will update the old one with verbiage to incorporate that, presumably. Sorry, I can’t tell you the exact mechanism they’ll use. I also agree it won’t be legally sound.

Okay, thank you for responding -- I obviously don't expect anyone to read the lawyers' minds.

I get it: in the absence of a definition of 'authorization,' Wizards can try to say it means whatever they want it to mean.

Regardless of what Wizards intends, nothing is settled until the OGL is updated with an irrevocability clause and a removal of the 'authorized version' language from Section 9, and I'll keep asking for it.

 

[Greg K]

Yeah. That's the whole point!

This is why most industries that deal with brands don't have any sort of open licensing. You don't see Disney engaged in open licenses, because they don't want to see their Princess in an X-Rated product, or Mickey Mouse advocating for bigotry.

This doesn't defend their decision to yank the rug out from underneath the feet of the people that relied on their promises; but it does explain why the aspect of control is important to licensors, and also why this type of control can't be achieved with an open license.

But with the current OGL, nobody can use Wizards IP under the OGL. Using WOTC IP requires a different agreement (currently, the agreement to publish on DMsGuild).