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.

 

[pemerton]

I've not seen any. I'm open to hearing one.

I've posted it, in the PSA thread.

It is defined in section 8 as definable by the content creators (and also that it must be clearly indicated).

Section 8 does not define the phrase "the Open Gaming Content" as that phrase occurs in section 4 of the OGL. And indeed it doesn't define anything: section 8 imposes an obligation on licensees to include a notice in their work that identifies the OGC they are distributing.

 

[Minigiant]

Please read what you respond to… since WotC’s IP is not covered by the OGL, there is nothing to lock down

They cannot seriously restrict, dragons, giants, orcs (where are those from again?), etc. Beholders and stuff like that already are excluded

The gameplay aspects are.
The question is how translating the OGL aspects to amovie or TVcould be fought in court.

 

[Reynard]

lets walk down a crazy hypothetical where honor among thieves hits 2.x billion (talk about a fantasy story) and unseats avengers and avatar... they green light 4 sequels, 2 direct with same cast and crew, and 1 that is a Drizt movie and 1 that is an Elminster movie.
Disney wants in, but can't just make "a D&D movie" so they hire some one to make a new OGL game, and this game is pretty much just the SRD with some paint over it... then they have a writer make a movie and back build that movie into that game... and they STILL don't get the name recognition of D&D...

They would not make an OGL game.

 

[tjhairball]

Hasbro-WotC seeks to destroy the OGL 1.0a at any cost.

I think if Hasbro executives actually understood the history of the game, they'd know that the OGL 1.0a gives up nothing (i.e., trademark material) and mostly protects them from launching stupid lawsuits (over game mechanics with tiny companies and outright amateurs who aren't even trying to make money).

Like... they have to be ignorant of the history of D&D or just plain stupid in order to realize that they don't actually lose money on OGL 1.0a, and the OGL still gives them the necessary chops to protect commercialization by the big boys.

Tarzan, as a character, entered the public domain before Disney bought rights to make an animated film. Why did they buy rights to make a story in the public domain? Because the Burroughs estate had kept the trademark active. Want to put Tarzan in your novel? You can! Want to sell it as a Tarzan novel? Welcome to lawsuitsville, population you.

There's basically nothing that Disney can sell that the OGL 1.0a "gave away." Flumphs aren't going to make or break a big-budget cinematic piece.

 

[Greg Benage]

That doesn't make any sense. Disney could sign on to OGL 2.0 and make a Willow RPG. I mean, there is no way in hell they would do so, but they could. This absolutely has nothing to do with stopping Disney -- or freaking Wendy's -- from stealing D&D. (I know you did not say that, but others have intimated it.)

And if there is something preventing a Willow RPG, it would also apply to any 3PP. In this scenario, Disney is no different from any other third-party publisher.

Unless @FormerLurker is imagining market-cap limitations in the license, or something.

All this aside, they've said they have two core goals:

(1) protecting and cultivating an inclusive play environment
(2) limiting the OGL to TTRPGs

I'll admit to be more than a little dubious about (1), but I absolutely believe (2). They're not worried about the Willow TTRPG, they're worried Disney, Amazon, Activision, or some other company will do a next-gen SRD-based VTT that blows them out of the water after they've sunk literally hundreds of millions of dollars into it.

The only way to do that is to go nuclear on the OGL. But the ironic thing is that, even if the largest companies in the TTRPG space don't have the war chest to resist their lawfare, Disney, Amazon, and Activision sure as hell do. If one of those companies decide they want to produce a next-gen SRD-based VTT that blows WotC out of the water, Wizards' claim to have "taken it back" isn't likely to stop them.

 

[FormerLurker]

Except they can do just that if they want to, that's the consequences of the OGL 1.0a which WotC/Hasbro cannot practically do anything about. They may not like that, but that does seem to be the situation they're in.

Which is probably why they want to revise the 1.0a. Because they can rephrase the OGL 2.0 to limit companies larger than WotC from making D&D or something.

I kinda hope they do because that's someone Hasbro wouldn't be able to strongarm with empty but costly legal threats.

Do you really want Disney owning D&D?

 

[mamba]

I don't think they want anyone making anything even close to OGL or SRD stuff.

well, they are out of luck then. If Disney wants to, Disney will, and WotC will not stop them, with or without OGL

 

[FrogReaver]

I've posted it, in the PSA thread.

Then instead of asking me to find a needle in a haystack how about linking it?

...You just directed me to 100+ pages of posts where you yourself have made who knows how many.

Section 8 does not define the phrase "the Open Gaming Content" as that phrase occurs in section 4 of the OGL. And indeed it doesn't define anything: section 8 imposes an obligation on licensees to include a notice in their work that identifies the OGC they are distributing.

Okay. Section 1(d) does.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

They would not make an OGL game.

how is it everyone misses 'crazy hypothetical' then responds like I said "THIS IS HOW IT"S GOING TO BE"

 

[Matt Thomason]

Which is probably why they want to revise the 1.0a. Because they can rephrase the OGL 2.0 to limit companies larger than WotC from making D&D or something.

Oh, agreed. Its just a bit academic seeing that they cannot actually revise it (they can issue new versions, but it looks very unlikely they can remove old ones except by getting people to actually agree not to use it), and can only make empty legal threats in the hope the legal fees involved will scare most people away (which, unfortunately, they're right about)

Do you really want Disney owning D&D?

They wouldn't own it though. All they can do is make a game with the same rules, just as everyone else can.