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.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was certainly planning on filling it out properly myself and being very clear that if they're revoking 1.0a and getting rid of the concept of OGC this is a non-starter.

However if the revelations re: WotC not actually reading surveys that are apparently coming soonish turn out to be in-depth or accurate seeming I'm not sure I'll be bothering to do anything but click the numbers and write "Keep OGL 1.0a" in every text box. So it very much depends on that.

I think it still behooves us to give detailed and honest feedback. We should assume they aren’t going to read every word of every response, because that just wouldn’t be an efficient use of time. But, I think we should expect that they are looking to the written responses for clarity on why the satisfaction numbers are the way they are. As WotC explicitly told us back during the D&D Next playtests, the most effective way to engage with the surveys is to rate everything, and explain the reasons for the rating you gave. Don’t make suggestions, and don’t fill the wordcount with unnecessary noise. Just explain the reasons for your ratings as clearly and concisely as possible.

 

[darjr]

I do think this is a good.

 

[Haplo781]

You are assuming I'm countering that? Cause you'd be wrong.

I said I don't know.

Do you know him? Are you privy?

Nope.

I'm just more inclined to give benefit of the doubt to the person who broke the OGL 1.1 story in the first place than others in this thread. That's all.

 

[The Sigil]

Their Mission Objective : to sell subscriptions to 6e and its VTT on DDB at a recurring monthly rate for DMs and players alike, ideally resulting in recurring revenues to WotC from DMs and players like any extremely successful MMO would provide ("WoW money").

THAT is the objective. To assist them in achieving that goal:

1- No Competing VTTs: they don't want a VTT that can run 6e other than their own; and

2- No Competing 5e Ruleset: Either directly or as a way to boost a VTT to provide 6e compatibility. To more broadly assist their effort in moving people to 6e, they DO NOT want to be competing with a fork in 5e, published by Paizo, Kobold Press or another party in circumstances that raises the specter of PF1 and 2008 all over again. I am not sure they can actually legally avoid this, but that is what WotC wants to avoid just the same.

That is the minimum acceptable outcome to WotC.

I think Steel_Wind has the correct view here, and I think Joe does a good job of summarizing why the OGL 1.0a is so important here.

As things stand today, the SRD for 5e is Open Game Content under the OGL 1.0a. This means anyone can legally copy - and more importantly for creatives - MAKE DERIVATIVE WORKS - the 5e SRD. This means, theoretically, that 5e could be forked... and in fact, you could argue that such a fork already exists as Level Up/A5E could already be considered a fork of 5e.

In addition, there are other game systems that have been published as Open Game Content under the OGL 1.0a where WotC had no part in developing these systems, and the only way in which it utilizes WotC IP at all is that they used the text of the OGL 1.0a to release their systems under a pre-existing system of copyleft (the OGL) so that anyone who cared to could use this corpus of Open Game Content to create new games.

There is now a significant corpus of Open Game Content that has been released under the OGL 1.0a over the past 23 years. Some portion of it is WotC's IP. Some portion of that corpus consists of derivative works of WotC's IP. But there is also a substantial portion of that corpus that is neither WotC's IP nor derivative of it. Under the terms of the OGL 1.0a, everyone is free to draw from the entire corpus of Open Game Content - some of which WotC had absolutely no stake in creating - to mix new games.

The current corpus of Open Game Content is a metaphorical "Commons" to which MANY contributed with the full knowledge that their work would be available for others to draw on; in return, they themselves would be entitled to draw upon this "Commons" in the future as well. I have not seen anyone arguing that WotC must release D&D 6e under the OGL 1.0a; to the contrary, everyone agrees they can release 6e under the terms of any license they see fit to, in the same way they released 4e under the GSL.

The reason the community is up in arms is that in attempting to say "the OGL 1.0a is no longer authorized" is as follows:

1. Attempting to "deauthorize" the whole of the OGL 1.0a means they are effectively attempting to restrict future access to ALL Open Game Content currently in the "Commons," including content they did not create and which is not derivative of their work. This strikes most people as unethical - why should WotC get any say in how a contributor allows other people to use content which was created completely independent of WotC?

2. There is a significant portion of Open Game Content currently in the "Commons" that is derivative of WotC content (the 3e and 5e SRDs). Once WotC claims to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a, whether or not it is legally feasible to create future derivative works based not on WotC content directly but on works that work created as derivative works that were authorized at the time of creation, becomes extremely muddied, thus "poisoning" the portion of Open Game Content "Commons" that is derivative of WotC material. This makes creation of any new product based on OGL 1.0a material - WotC or otherwise - more or less infeasible as you now lack the shield of the OGL to protect you if WotC decides to get litigious (note this was never an issue for already-existing products because it would be easy to point to WotC's previous public statements on the matter - e.g. the FAQ written by Ryan Dancey - and get the case dismissed using promissory estoppel as a defense since at the time of publishing there were no public representations to the contrary, which is why the community is unmoved by WotC's promise that already-existing works won't be affected - once WotC officially represents that the material in the 5e or 3e SRD is not authorized for use as Open Game Content, there is no longer the clear line in their statements to rely upon for promissory estoppel).

3. WotC's own statements through the years (including the much-cited FAQ) suggested that WotC knew that they were releasing the 3e and 5e SRD's into the Open Game Content pool, their intent was to allow others to use it forever ("in perpetuity") and not "until we change our mind." Nobody has argued WotC couldn't release 6e under some other licensing system.

It is clear that what WotC REALLY wants to say is that "you are no longer authorized to use the Open Game Content contained 3e and 5e SRDs" - which they have to know was explicitly not intended to be possible under the terms of the OGL 1.0a - and so they chose to try to do so in a backdoor way by casting it as "revising" the OGL and "deauthorizing" the previous agreement. It's unclear of course whether this attempt will stand up in court, but there's no way to find out without an expensive legal battle and even the threat of their doing so makes it difficult for anyone who is not both strongly convinced that they have the law on their side and has the resources to engage in a drawn-out legal fight to do so. My feeling is that while there is some frustration in the community that they're trying to "take back 3e and 5e" I think people more frustration about the way they've chosen to do it because it maximizes the damage to the corpus of Open Game Content - by attempting to render the entirety corpus unusable except under the most onerous terms, including significant portions of OGC that WotC had absolutely no involvement with creating and have no moral right to exert control over.

THIS is what Joe is talking about below:

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.
...
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.

TL;DR: The community is upset because by attempting to "deauthorize" the OGL 1.0a WotC is effectively trying to take away from the RPG community the current and future use of the entire corpus of Open Game Content which THE COMMUNITY HELPED BUILD over the past 23 years under the express promise that the community would have the ability to (re) use that content "in perpetuity" under the same terms they accepted at the time they contributed it, including content that WotC neither created themselves nor was built on Open Game Content WotC contributed.

The fact that WotC's lawyers have managed to sow fear, uncertainty, and doubt where none existed for 23 years is why, to most people, the only acceptable update to the OGL 1.0a would be something akin to adding the term "irrevocable" so that no muddying of the waters like this can be pulled again.

 

[darjr]

 

[Haplo781]

I do think this is a good.
View attachment 273031

Great that he's taking responsibility and walking back.

Unlike some corporations.

 

[darjr]

Nope.

I'm just more inclined to give benefit of the doubt to the person who broke the OGL 1.1 story in the first place than others in this thread. That's all.

And I’m not? I also happen to have known “different” facts and said so.

I did not take kindly to your insulting responses

 

[J.Quondam]

Yeah, I think engaging earnestly with these surveys is the best thing any of us can do, apart from cancelling our D&D Beyond subscriptions and holding off on any D&D related purchases until this situation gets resolved.

That, plus keeping up the chatter on social media.
And maybe even writing an old-fashioned letter to the Powers That Be at WotC.

 

[mamba]

I'd just meant that they had a good sense of timing to make the blow vs WotC as hard as they can.

well, WotC brought this onto themselves. Had they not messed with the OGL none of this would have happened.

At this point I want them to be taken down a few notches

 

[FrogReaver]

Just curious, does one need to have a DND Beyond account to do this survey?