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.

 

[Reynard]

View attachment 273032

This dude's credibility is dropping rapidly in my estimation.

 

[pemerton]

This is impossible without revoking OGL 1.0a. OGL 1.0a explicitly allows all of that.

I think it's a mistake to make dogmatic assertions about what the OGL v 1.0/1.0a does and does not permit, especially when those assertions are not backed up by legal reasoning.

The key provision of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a that confers permissions and powers on licensees is section 4. It uses two key terms, "use" and "the Open Gaming Content". The term "use" is defined in the agreement. That definition is very broad and encompasses a power to sub-license the OGC. The phrase "the OGC" is not defined. It admits of multiple interpretations. Depending on which interpretation is favoured, different conclusions may follow about what capacity WotC has to take steps to change the scope of what licensees are permitted to do.

 

[pemerton]

The OGL (all existing, non-"draft" versions) makes reference to authorized versions of the license. WotC is going to claim that that authorization has been withdrawn going forward from whatever date the so-called "Open" Gaming License 2 (or whatever they're calling it now) takes effect.

Like...that's literally what they're doing. They're trying to exploit a crappy probably-non-existent loophole in the way the existing license is worded.

Are they? Does the word "authorise" even appear in the most recent statement?

There are a variety of legal arguments open to WotC. Not all of them turn on strained interpretations of section 9. I'm not sure how you are so confident that they are going to use one particular argument that you think is weak.

 

[FrogReaver]

Given the sweeping claims some people have made in the name of fighting bigotry, I also absolutely do NOT trust WotC like that.

Like this editorial in The Guardian from two years ago arguing the entire fantasy genre as we know it is inherently racist (It’s time for fantasy fiction and role-playing games to shed their racist history). Making just about anything you'd recognize as a D&D adventure or campaign setting would fall under things this editorial calls "racism".

There's the nonsense with WotC even removing the term "race" for the game when referring to character races.

They'll find SOMETHING to complain about for any work they want to ban, saying it's some kind of bigotry. Is your big bad villain a woman? Then your setting is misogynistic. Are the villains men instead? Then you're sexist for not being inclusive of women. Do your dungeons have stairs and ladders instead of ramps? Then you're being ableist by not accomodating wheelchair-bound adventurers. Do you not include any LBGT characters in your setting or adventures? Then you're transphobic or homophobic. If your LBGT character is a villain or has an evil alignment, then you're being transphobic or homophobic for depicting a trans person as a bad person.

They can cook up any excuse they want, in bad faith, to come up with the excuse to call virtually any content bigoted if they want.

I absolutely would never trust them with any kind of content-approval clause. It's just a blanket veto power under a fig leaf of diversity.

To be fair, I don't actually expect them to abuse it much and even less often in a blanket-veto power kind of way.

The problem I have is that them having that power makes any 3pp business for D&D set on a risky foundation of sand - and that's just terrible business.

Honestly, I'm not against morality guidelines - just not their blank check + after the fact one.

For me on a morality clause I want more clearly defined guidelines (they don't have to be perfect, but at least tell me some things you'll always consider 'okay' so I can use that safe harbor to develop content in). I also would want an appeal to arbitration so that a third party could weigh in on whether they were abusing the clause or had a legitimate claim. Also, a third party defining what is acceptable and not acceptable would also be on my wishlist (but not necessarily essential). - I'm kind of surprised there isn't a foundation set up to act this way already that companies could just plug into.

 

[FrogReaver]

Are they? Does the word "authorise" even appear in the most recent statement?

There are a variety of legal arguments open to WotC. Not all of them turn on strained interpretations of section 9. I'm not sure how you are so confident that they are going to use one particular argument that you think is weak.

Because it's the best of the lot of bad arguments?

 

[FormerLurker]

Okay... so right now it seems like WotC only has one thing they really want: the OGL 1.0a revoked. Everything else is negotiable, but keeping that seems to be the deal breaker.
There's something in the old license they object to or worry will be abused in the future.

So, reasonably, if this is to be an actual negotiation and conversation, the community needs to ask what they're willing to accept in exchange for losing the OGL 1.0a (while also gaining the ORC). What we're willing to compromise on.
WotC is willing to compromise on everything else. If the community isn't willing to budge at all, or demands WotC not only abandon their plans but enact restitutions... then there's not really any point to the further discussion. Those players should just leave the conversation and walk away from the game as nothing will change.

 

[Scribe]

WotC is willing to compromise on everything else.

Because the rest didnt matter.

Its not a negotiation. OGL 1.0 remains, untouched or declared legally irrevocable. Thats it, thats how this all ends.

 

[Vaalingrade]

There's something in the old license they object to or worry will be abused in the future.

Pathfinder.

It's Pathfinder.

They all but called them by name in the opening salvo.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well yeah, because as their FAQ rightly pointed out, as long as people can keep using 1.0, there’s no benefit to them changing the OGL in a way that would make publishers not want to adopt it. And since 1D&D is going to be compatible with 5e, as long as new content can be made using the 5.1 SRD under OGL 1.0a, anyone will be able to clone 1D&D, which I’m sure they don’t want.

They need to make 6e its own game. Its the only way to protect their interests. This attack on the 1.0a will cost them way too much to "win".

 

[FrogReaver]

I think it's a mistake to make dogmatic assertions about what the OGL v 1.0/1.0a does and does not permit, especially when those assertions are not backed up by legal reasoning.

OGL 1.0a permits the 'Use' of Open Gaming Content. Open Gaming Content - according to the license in section 8 mandates that the contributor of OGC must clearly define what is OGC. 'Use' as you noted is defined in the agreement.

One doesn't have to be a lawyer to know that it permits "use, Distribute, copy, edit, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Game Content (which the contributors define).

The key provision of the OGL v 1.0/1.0a that confers permissions and powers on licensees is section 4. It uses two key terms, "use" and "the Open Gaming Content". The term "use" is defined in the agreement. That definition is very broad and encompasses a power to sub-license the OGC. The phrase "the OGC" is not defined. It admits of multiple interpretations. Depending on which interpretation is favoured, different conclusions may follow about what capacity WotC has to take steps to change the scope of what licensees are permitted to do.

As I noted above, OGC is defined.