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.

 

[Maxperson]

Never mind. Didn't see the mod post.

 

[BMaC]

There are shirts?!

https://www.teepublic.com/stores/kobold-press?utm_campaign=13494&utm_medium=affiliate&utm_source=Kobold%2BPress

 

[Jer]

This...Literally makes no sense.
So the license is Deauthorized, but still authorized so old stuff can be made?


What?

They think the fans are "overreacting" and so they're trying to find the right combination of words to get them to calm down. It doesn't have to make sense, it just has to get the fans mollified.

All of this makes sense once you remember that the suits come from the video game industry and are thinking of the ttrpg market as the same kind of field.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Plus, when my wife did a semester in London (forever ago) Pizza Hut was the ONLY place she found that had bottomless soda (as in free refills) - some things are VERY important to Americans, and that tends to be at the top!

RIP Pizza Hut's bottomless soda in the UK

I don't think anyone has bottomless soda here anymore (they did used to though). A couple of places have machines that make it look that way, but they have signs on them saying it's not lol.

 

[GreyLord]

If they agree to use ORC. Otherwise...why?
For 22+ years they said the OGL was untouchable and we could rely on it. Now they say it's touchable and they're taking it away, because they own it.

• If they drop all this talk and keep using the OGL1, they'll still own the license and someone will try to de-authorize it again in a few years, unless it's firmly and absolutely put down in court, which it won't be.
• If they leave OGL1 alone and publish OGL2, anything published under it can be republished under OGL1. So, nothing is gained.
• If they deauthorize OGL1, then they've gained more control.

The only solution is for WotC to not control the license.

22 years of the OGL (and the internet) have made people a lot more educated about open licenses. And most publishers don't actually need it. The cost to switch away is LOW. The consequences of staying are HIGH. So, they're going to move away from it. It's tainted by association.


They've actually explained it very well.

I have no problem participating, but they have very little to bargain with any more. They showed their hand too soon.

This is a reasonable thought process. There may be some that are willing to listen and (hopefully) make changes in accordance with what the feedback is.

Tell them this in the Survey responses. They'll have canned responses, but I expect there is also going to be a place for you to write out your personal opinions and feelings on the matter as well as explain what you feel they should do going forward.

 

[Konrad13]

This...Literally makes no sense.
So the license is Deauthorized, but still authorized so old stuff can be made?


What?

All PREVIOUS content will be protected by the OGL 1.0/1.0(a) but once they roll out the new OGL 2.0 they are going to try and deauthorize the use of the 1.0/1.0(a) to prevent people from using it for all future products meaning creators will be banned from it's use once the new OGL 2.0 drops. It's like saying "we know you used macaroni noodles in your art before, and everything you made with those mac noodles are good and you can keep them, but once we give you spaghetti noodles you can no longer use the mac noodles ever again."

 

[Reynard]

Dominos

pizza

I don't understand the connection between these two words.

 

[FallenRX]

All PREVIOUS content will be protected by the OGL 1.0/1.0(a) but once they roll out the new OGL 2.0 they are going to try and deauthorize the use of the 1.0/1.0(a) to prevent people from using it for all future products meaning creators will be banned from it's use once the new OGL 2.0 drops. It's like saying "we know you used macaroni noodles in your art before, and everything you made with those mac noodles are good and you can keep them, but once we give you spaghetti noodles you can no longer use the mac noodles ever again."

How does that work if the OGL is deauthorized, i dont understand, they have lost the literal right to use the terms in those books retroactively

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand the connection between these two words

 

[overgeeked]

Tell them this in the Survey responses. They'll have canned responses, but I expect there is also going to be a place for you to write out your personal opinions and feelings on the matter as well as explain what you feel they should do going forward.

Why? They can ignore whatever they want and report back whatever results they want. There's also the trouble of what will be a clearly biased sample. Remember those 40,000 deleted accounts. Those people will be excluded. They deleted their accounts specifically because they were mad. Asking them to sign up again to fill out this survey is just trying to pad the numbers before they have to report to the shareholders. Trying to have what needs to be a very public conversation in private is a glaring red flag.