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.

 

[Inchoroi]

....nah, I'll pass, WotC. I'll stop writing forever before I agree to anything like the above.

 

[Greg Benage]

I mean, I don't think that matters. What matters is that WotC believes that -- or thinks they can prevail with that -- and nobody can challenge them on it.

The good news is, they can (under this theory) deauthorize future works without revoking the license. The bad news is, they can (under this theory) deauthorize some or all of whatever agreement they make next. The worse news, if I'm reading @Steel_Wind correctly, is that Wizards could state explicitly in OGLnext that it is "perpetual and irrevocable" and they'd still (under this theory) be able to "deauthorize" it at will.

 

[jerryrice4949]

The surveys are not bunk.

Totally agree. It’s like people on this site forget most videos and content on the internet are made to gather attention which is best done with controversy.

 

[ilgatto]

It means they're paying someone at the law firm to make some charts and write a blog post, at least. The thing about data is that a good analyst can make it say whatever they want.

My point exactly. I've had some experience working (albeit some time ago) with psychology students setting up questionnaires and surveys and there's lots of ways of using questions to get the answers one wants. I suppose that's gotten even worse today with data analysm.

For my part, I strongly dislike how this individual throws the playtest under the bus to build momentum for their primary argument.

I'd literally never heard of this guy until just now and I agree that his statements have an enthusiastic quality to them, if not sensationalist. However, that does not necessarily mean that he cannot be right.

It's not even the "Lead Designers" writing the OGL, so I'm not sure why their position on surveys should have any bearing at all on this topic. Part of ensuring the new rules are well received is assessing negative feedback to those rules before they are finalized. Taking these quotes out of context is meaningless.

I've run a lot of internal meetings that sounded like those quotes from the "Lead Designer;" they sound terrible, but it doesn't follow that they or I don't have our clients' best interests in mind.

It is often a mixture of people meaning well and others with more nefarious agendas. Few things are usually either one things or another and then there's that many things tend to go wrong or end up being misinterpreted in large organizations - or, indeed, any organization or enterprise.

(...)
I agree that folks shouldn't respond to the OGL survey, think, "Job well done," and move on, but... well, duh. That's not an insight. It barely qualifies as thought.

Agreed. And people thinking "a job well done" may well be what certain folks at Wizbro may be after.

 

[mamba]

Why? They aren't required to release a new SRD, and if they do they can release it under whatever constraints they like.

but I want it, under essentially the same constraints

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The only thing that surprises me about this “development” is that allegedly NO ONE reads the survey feedback. And frankly, that reads like illustrative hyperbole to me. In the Jeremy Crawford interviews, he explicitly cites the trends in reasoning why respondents are dissatisfied with certain elements, which he must have at least read some of the written responses to know. I mean, I guess maybe they could have some software that scans the written responses and tells them what key words and phrases are showing up regularly. But yeah, this is really not new information to me.

Yes. Quite dodgy. At that point I think we should take every leak woth a grain of salt. While some leaks proved to be mostly true, noone knows if the rest are too. Now everything is so heated, that some people might just delight putting oil in the fire.

I see more dodgy things. First and foremost, 3pp producers who now make the ORC certainly don't act out of altruism...

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Alphastream :verified: (@Alphastream@dice.camp)

WotC sent an e-mail to some influencers and product reviewers (including little ol' me) and I thought it was really good. I won't share the details, but it included an assurance that it is okay for us to speak our minds. So, hopefully this reflects a much better approach across the company.

dice.camp

I want more details about this.

 

[Charlaquin]

one of my writer fiends told me "exposure isnt a payment its what you die of"

“A cause of death” would be a more elegant phrasing, in my opinion.

 

[Charlaquin]

Ok bye.

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

Gotta love respectability politics

 

[jgbrowning]

This is not accurate. Revocation is not de-authorization. They can mean different things.

Something that has already been published under the OGL 1.0a is effectively licensed and lawfully released content; it stands on its own. What was legal last month is legal next month. It remains legal to own it and sell it, even if the OGL 1.0a is "de-authorized".

That does not mean, however, that additional new derivative material may be created or sub-licensed in the future, based on already lawfully released material under the OGL 1.0a, or indeed, under any other license. That is what "de-authorization" is aimed at preventing, going forward. This matters to 3pp which stops them from relying upon and creating new works based upon their existing works. It will certainly matter to those people who want to continue to use 5e, or would prefer to use a variant of same -- and don't want to move on to 6e.

De-authorization doesn't terminate existing licenses; rather, it closes the barn door and prevents new material based on the OGL 1.0a from being created going forward. Given that there is a REAL prospect of a "fork" in 5e coming in the near future based on the 5.1 SRD, published by Kobold Press, (or Paizo or somebody else) that is what WotC would prefer to avoid. Conversely, it's also what some ENworlders and other DMs/players might prefer DID HAPPEN in the near term as well. Project Black Flag drew a roar of approval from many 5e gamers. So yes, this is very much a live issue.

I'm not so sure.

If additional new derivative material cannot be created out of an authorized OGL1.0a licensed work, that work is not actually an authorized 1.0a license, it is functioning under some other agreement, but it not 1.0a. The license allows new derivative material to happen.

If WotC intends to say that there are authorized licenses of 1.0a out there which NOW do not provide the right to create additional new derivative material from, as you are saying, they cannot use the 1.0a license as currently written to make that statement. They need a new license because that's not what the 1.0a says happens with an authorized license, which WotC is still saying the old, already released products are going to remain.

To do what you suggest they intend to do WotC are required to revoke or unauthorize the license and then declare "we are not going to pursue copyright litigation against all previously-published material under the 1.0a license, but will we on any new material published under the revoked and or unathorized license."

What they cannot say is "this is an authorized product under the 1.0a" (even for a "grandfathered legacy product) and say "but you can't use it to make additional new derivative material" because those two statements are logically in opposition.

joe b.