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.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I don't see any value in that line of thought really. A bad actor will be a bad actor either way, and as NuTSR demonstrated, you can sue them outside the OGL just fine.

My point being that if you stop them using the OGL, they might decide to put the effort in to make a compatible product without it, and indicate compatibility with a legal fair use of your trademark. The only thing stopping them actually putting your trademark on there was that they were using the OGL, so you may want to keep them using that.

Scenario 1: They make their product under the OGL, and can only put "Compatible with 5e" on it.
Scenario 2: They make their product without the OGL, and can now legally put "Compatible with the 5th Edition of the Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game[tm] by Wizards of the Coast[tm]" on it, as long as they keep within the boundaries of fair use.

 

[dbolack]

And WotC probably doesn't want them making an RPG that uses their rules but is set in the world of Willow.

You understand we're they to do that it would sell more to Willow fans who aren't gamers than are? This is a potential boon by expanding the playerbase...

 

[Minigiant]

all they have to do is rewrite it and maybe add some changes of their own and then see whether WotC dares sue over copyright, kinda reversed tables from where we are now

You aren't getting what I'm saying.

Copying 3e or 5e and using not IP monsters is the shortcut.

If Disney or Amazon cannot copy 3e or 5e, they are building their RPG from scratch or hiring a 3PP who hasn't been proven to have mass appeal.

 

[dbolack]

The gameplay aspects are.
The question is how translating the OGL aspects to amovie or TVcould be fought in court.

Um. Fair use.

 

[dbolack]

The MCU is probably the most valuable movie franchise in history and they still can't put out a decent RPG.

FASERIP enters the chat.

 

[Twiggly the Gnome]

I really want to know what some people think is in the SRD that Disney would have to use the OGL to create a fantasy movie or show with in order to compete with WotC/Hasbro stuff.

Yeah, Disney doesn't need the SRD, they are already masters of pilfering story ideas from folklore and myth.

 

[dbolack]

It's a shortcut to raise success.

The OGL 1.0a stunted RPG gamedesign in some ways so another Big media Corp would be "rolling dice" on picking up a 3PP for their game.

No more than they would with any incarnation of TSR.

 

[Amrûnril]

Isn't it?
WotC want's something. The community wants something. The two sides have to find some way to meet in the middle and compromise.

If one side isn't budging then things are an impasse. It's having a discussion with a brick wall. WotC will just have to ignore those people and move on, because there's nothing to be gained in engaging.

What WotC wants is to take from the community something that they have no moral right and probably no legal right to take. What the community wants is simply not to have something unjustly taken from them. Those positions are not equivalent and should not be treated as if they are.

 

[Grendel_Khan]

Mod Note:

Accusing your fellow ENWorlders of being corporate shills because they disagree with you is poor form & pretty rude to boot. Knock it off, and don’t repeat that error.

Roger that. Knocking it off all the way out of this thread. I’ll just leave these boots here in case anyone gets tired of licking WotC’s.

 

[mamba]

You aren't getting what I'm saying.

or maybe it is the other way around

Copying 3e or 5e and using not IP monsters is the shortcut.

yes, if Disney had not done that in my scenario (well, technically rewritten / reworded, they cannot literally copy), then what is WotC even suing over ?

EDIT: just to clarify, at this point we do not even know if anything in the SRD falls under copyright, this never needed answering because of the OGL. Chances are some bits are, but possibly nothing whatsoever is (apart from the wording itself). Chances are the vast majority is not. If Disney knows what they are doing, then good luck WotC... they might walk away with owning the term 'advantage' for rolling two dice and taking the higher, and not much else

 

[Minigiant]

No more than they would with any incarnation of TSR.

A TSR-like game wouldn't sell to the modern public.

 

[Mistwell]

My point being that if you stop them using the OGL, they might decide to put the effort in to make a compatible product without it, and indicate compatibility with a legal fair use of your trademark. The only thing stopping them actually putting your trademark on there was that they were using the OGL, so you may want to keep them using that.

Scenario 1: They make their product under the OGL, and can only put "Compatible with 5e" on it.
Scenario 2: They make their product without the OGL, and can now legally put "Compatible with the 5th Edition of the Dungeons and Dragons Roleplaying Game[tm] by Wizards of the Coast[tm]" on it, as long as they keep within the boundaries of fair use.

I am not seeing that benefit outweighing making life harder for bad actors to use WOTC SRD elements.

 

[Gammadoodler]

It's always a draft until signed. And it did not go through, so it does not matter.

That is not how drafts work.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I am not seeing that benefit outweighing making life harder for bad actors to use WOTC SRD elements.

To me, it's a case of which do I want to stop them using the most - my open-to-the-world SRD that doesn't really contain all that much I can stop people using with or without a license, or my Trademarks?

 

[pemerton]

It's always a draft until signed.

That is not how drafts work.

I think what @MonsterEnvy means is that, until anyone actually accepts an offer that WotC is making, WotC is free to change the terms on which it is offering to licence its IP.

 

[Scribe]

I think what @MonsterEnvy means is that, until anyone actually accepts an offer that WotC is making, WotC is free to change the terms on which it is offering to licence its IP.

I mean to be fair, Wizbro thinks they can change the terms at any point...

 

[dbolack]

A TSR-like game wouldn't sell to the modern public.

Umm. Okay. Sure.

 

[Scribe]

Yeah, Disney doesn't need the SRD, they are already masters of pilfering story ideas from folklore and myth.

This is the part that is equal parts funny, and sad.

The SRD is nothing, for a major (Amazon/Disney level) creative organization with the $$$ they have. They can throw money at world creation, or go buy somebody and polish it up. So for Wizards to be afraid of that, is the sad part. It means Wizbro is so insecure in its own defined IP, that it knows someone else could blow them out of the water, with just a bit of time and $$$.

This is 100% to be laid at Wizbro's feet, because instead of leaning into their IP, their lore, their history, they ran from it, disavowed it, and sanitized it to the point it may as well be Generic Fantasy Land care of DeviantArt. Thats sad.

The FUNNY part however, is that Wizbro is so high on its own supply, that it actually thinks the RULESET is worth risking court over, by deauthorizing the 1.0 OGL to 'protect' the 5.0 SRD.

THAT, has me laughing.

 

[pemerton]

I mean to be fair, Wizbro thinks they can change the terms at any point...

I'm not persuaded of this either. In the first draft/propsed/whatever 1.1 that was leaked, the variation of terms seemed to be expressed as being effectuated by contractual agreement, not via a unilateral exercise of power.

It's clear that WotC has a unilateral power to cease offering to licence the SRD to all comers on the terms of the OGL v 1.0a. What effect that would have on the rights of existing licensees to create new works using WotC's OGC, and/or to license others to use the WotC OGC that those existing licensees have used under licence, is in my view an open question, though not one about which it is impossible to reason. In the "lawyer PSA" thread, various posters with relevant expertise have canvassed some of the relevant legal arguments.

 

[Gammadoodler]

I think what @MonsterEnvy means is that, until anyone actually accepts an offer that WotC is making, WotC is free to change the terms on which it is offering to licence its IP.

Perhaps, but it reads more like conflating an incomplete or in-progress legal document (frequently watermarked as such) with an executable contract where the parties weren't able to come to an agreement on the terms included in the document.

This is a significant difference.