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


Erdric Dragin

Adventurer
1.0a still not allowed to be used going forward means they continue to get nothing from me along with bad press as I will keep reminding others to not get into D&D anymore.

Can't wait to bomb the hell out of their survey.

Here's to hoping they run this game into the ground, the shareholders want it sold to avoid deadweight, and Paizo buys it.
 


1.0a still not allowed to be used going forward means they continue to get nothing from me along with bad press as I will keep reminding others to not get into D&D anymore.

Can't wait to bomb the hell out of their survey.

Here's to hoping they run this game into the ground, the shareholders want it sold to avoid deadweight, and Paizo buys it.
Ok bye.

I am actively starting to want 1.0 to be revoked at this point cause I am sick of comments like this.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I’m not offering a justification
No. It is a justification because it's a business doing the harmful thing for money rather than a person doing it for malice as if that makes it better.
‘It’s just business’ is a response to looking at things in a highly charged and emotional way. A loss of clarity because you think more what you’ve lost than the opportunity.
And this is just a pointlessly condescending attack.

At what point and in what universe has responding to someone's issues with 'you're being overly emotional' been even remotely close enough to a good idea to see it with the James Webb telescope?
 

ilgatto

How inconvenient

One thing, though. It may well be true that Wizbro don't give a lamp about surveys or, indeed, read them, at least not in the way one might think, but their statement of today does say:

The survey will remain open for at least two weeks, and we’ll give you advance notice before it closes so that everyone who wants to participate can complete the survey. Then we will compile, analyze, react to, and present back what we heard from you.
(emphasis mine)

Not saying that this survey will actually amount to anything, but maybe that statement suggests they will at least read it - if that's what they mean by "compile" and "analyze"?
Even though it still doesn't say, exactly, who they are going to "react" and "present back to"?
 


mamba

Legend
Let's be 100% clear, here. Show me any open licensing by Disney that is similar. Or any other large brand.
it doesn’t exist, we both know that. No one forced WotC to create one, they did so voluntarily, the benefited immensely from it. All great.

Now they want to withdraw from a binding legal agreement they made, because they think that step benefits them and the other side cannot fight back, that is intolerable

it […] doesn't excuse Hasbro wanting to go back on the bargain.
precisely

But it does explain why Hasbro doesn't want to have it.
agreed, too bad they cannot have it ;)
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
One thing, though. It may well be true that Wizbro don't give a lamp about surveys or, indeed, read them, at least not in the way one might think, but their statement of today does say:


(emphasis mine)

Not saying that this survey will actually amount to anything, but maybe that statement suggests they will at least read it - if that's what they mean by "compile" and "analyze"?
Even though it still doesn't say, exactly, who they are going to "react" and "present back to"?
That's actually what they say when they release a UA, so take that in context.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top