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


Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
No way. They aren't letting a free to play competitor go up against their monthly sub fee VTT. They only have to live with what is out there now. The OGL 1.0a and what has been published under it is not something they can escape at this stage, so they have to live with it and work around it.

But going forward? They don't. If 6e is not under the OGL 1.0a, then a VTT won't be able to support it on the basis of an existing license if 6e is "different enough".

And I think at this stage, WotC has come to the design decision as a result of all of these events over the past few weeks that 6e will be less compatible with 5e than their marketing people would have preferred. They will break it just enough so it's not compatible with any 5.1 OGL based VTT rule set. From WotC's perspective, that will have to do.
That seems like the most likely outcome, if they realize they can’t get away with de-authorizing 1.0a.
 

rknop

Adventurer
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?
No.

Content restrictions (like "no offensive stuff") absolutely do not belong in an open license. You don't see anything like that in Creative Commons. The open license needs to be just about the legal terms for what can be reused. Trying to police tone and offensiveness will undermine it as an open license.

What is offensive is both in the eyes of the beholder, and in the eyes of the cultural mores of the time. They evolve. There are two problems. First, who gets to decide what's offensive? If WotC gets to decide what's offensive for all "O"GL content, they have too much power. If each individual publisher gets to specify what's offensive, then chaos reigns, and the ability to reuse things in the way that open license are supposed to enable becomes horribly tangled.

It's not too hard to imagine, for instance, a company stating that no derivative work under the "O"GL can use the terms "demon" or "devil" -- after all, we have exactly a historical example of this having been considered too culturally offensive by the publisher of D&D. Do you really want to make supposedly open game content subject to this?

If it's left to the cultural mores of the time, then stuff that was licensed under the supposedly-open license will become to be seen as widely not available any more under that license.

If you forbid any bigotry in open game content, could somebody write a WWII-based RPG? Because bigotry was a pretty important factor in what was going on there. Who gets to decide when bigotry is offensive vs. a part of the background that the authors aren't endorsing?

I REALLY hope that Paizo et al. do not fall into the trap of wanting to put in an anti-bigotry clause into their open game license. I'm not in favor of bigotry, but such concerns are separate concerns from the terms of sharing open content, and should not be conflated.
 
Last edited:

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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?
Yeah, I’m really not keen on the way gaslighting has colloquially become a synonym for lying or being manipulative…
 



Scribe

Legend
Problem the first, revoking a contract unilaterally and then creating a new contract that specifically allows unilateral revision by WotC/Hasbro. This is the big deal. It undermines trust in WotC as a steward of the flagship RPG. I am not even debating the veracity of being able to accomplish this feat, in a legal sense. It makes them unreliable to form a viable contract. And if they are going to embark on Problem 2...
Yell Tell Me GIF by John Crist Comedy
 


doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
I don't know what that means, but I think we're not having the same conversation.
Based on the aggregate of legal feedback I’ve read, I agree with Dancey in his tweet that “unaffected” is a meaningless term. If the OGL 1.0a still covers anything, and you can keep selling things published under it, then you can keep publishing things under it, as well. It’s one or the other, it cannot be halfway between.

They can’t “deauthorize” it for new works using the SRD covered by the OGL 1.0a, but keep it authorized for existing works.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top