• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
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"?
Not necessarily. They can compile, analyze and react to the survey questions you click and not even look at the written portions he was talking about.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


J.Quondam

CR 1/8
So is DnD Shorts getting his info from a mysterious omniscient figure who somehow knows everything about everything or is he getting faulty info? I'm confused.
I think the main caution is simply about bias. His source/s could be overstating things or painting things in an intentionally unfavorable light, but he doesn't really make that clear in his videos.
 






Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
PLEASE DO NOT CYBER STALK EMPLOYEEs... he is not your enemy. He is not someone that needs to be targeted... he is doing a job.
Mod Note:

Here is one legal definition of “cyberstalking”:

Cyberstalking refers to the crime of using the Internet, email, or other types of electronic communications to stalk, harass, or threaten another person.

Using someone’s freely posted, public LinkedIn profile to communicate with them is NOT cyberstalking in and of itself. However, the line between merely trying to communicate with that person and cyberstalking can be very thin, and would be arguable in a court of law.

Posting a link to a WotC employee’s LinkedIn profile in the context of this already heated discussion about their employer’s policy decisions could be seen as ill-advised.

So, everyone, please heed that quoted poster’s admonition and listen to your better angels on how you choose to use such information.
 


Remove ads

Remove ads

Top