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.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Depends on how the anti-bigotry provisions are worded. I certainly don’t want bigotry in D&D, but right now I’m not seeing a way to use an open license to prevent it without giving WotC an unacceptable degree of control over 3rd parties’ content.

Yeah. That's the whole point!

This is why most industries that deal with brands don't have any sort of open licensing. You don't see Disney engaged in open licenses, because they don't want to see their Princess in an X-Rated product, or Mickey Mouse advocating for bigotry.

This doesn't defend their decision to yank the rug out from underneath the feet of the people that relied on their promises; but it does explain why the aspect of control is important to licensors, and also why this type of control can't be achieved with an open license.

 

[Jer]

I do, and if WotC hadn’t offered up an alternative then I would be more supportive. But I have, and it’s fair - as an outsider looking in. In fact it’s more than fair - it’s generous. But because it isn’t as generous as before people are talking like it’s worthless which isn’t the case.

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.

How is what they've offered "fair" considering that, again, people have invested 20 years in producing content under the claims from Wizards that what is in the OGL is irrevocable?

This isn't personal it's business. As a business Wizards represented buying into the OGL as an irrevocable two-way street for them and for the people who used it. And now they're saying "well, no, actually we lied and we're going to take it all back."

That's not actually any definition of "fair" that I understand. In fact, it's deceptive business practice.

 

[Nellisir]

So if this was the exact same as the 1.0 expect it had the anti bigotry, and irrevocable added to it, would you guys still complain about 1.0 being deauthorized?

If it was exactly the same except for those two things, you could take OGL2 content and republish it under OGL1 and stuff it full of bigotry. They NEED to de-authorize OGL1, which teaches them they might need to deauthorize, or change, OGL2 in the future. So they'll clearly give themselves that ability.

 

[TheSword]

Literally the only people who can make this happen are WotC, do you understand that?

Well that isn’t the case at all is it. WotC could feel they are forced to litigate based on a threat to their business. 3pp could feel forced to litigate due to a threat to WotCs business. Both of these are been driven by the move to VTT and the growth in D&D.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It’s also business, and isn’t personal.

And that's the tragic, fatal flaw.

"It's just business" isn't a justification, it's an excuse.

 

[Ystraeth]

Then tell them in the Survey when it comes out. Tell all your friends to tell them in the survey when it comes out. Rather than complain and say, actually TELL them. Have OTHERS tell them.

I can't remember how it happened, as I rarely interact with WotC let alone something like DDB, but last year I got a survey about D&D in the future. I play D&D on occasion so thought sure, why not.

As I filled it out, it was really quite long, I realized that it was all about 100% digital experiences and how you would interact with them. The survey expressly did not state this up front. All the way through I felt I couldn't express my opinion accurately as there was not a clear option for "Not interested" or 'my D&D future looks a lot different to these limited answer options'. Over, and over and over. I got quite irritated with it by the end. The survey was ostensibly about D&D in the future, but in fact it was clearly about D&D in a digital only future (or digital enough to not even have 'non-purchase' as a question answer option). My point being surveys selection bias is pretty strong with WotC from what I've experienced. I remain deeply skeptical that this survey will be any different. They can certainly prove me wrong though

 

[Maxperson]

The issue here is that no proposed version of OGL 2.0 has any of the following features:

1) Open Gaming Content - the ability to share content, not just use the SRD.

2) Irrevocability - on the direct contrary, so far it's been "modify at 30 days notice".

3) Clear guidance about what is and isn't allowed, and some sort of appeal process.

Without those, no matter nice the rest is, it's just not an OGL.

True, but the new language released in a few days could change that. If it doesn't, then they're just pouring oil onto the fire.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Well that isn’t the case at all is it. WotC could feel they are forced to litigate based on a threat to their business. 3pp could feel forced to litigate due to a threat to WotCs business. Both of these are been driven by the move to VTT and the growth in D&D.

No.

There's no realistic possibility of the 3PPs being able to "launch first". Saying there is just means you don't understand the law.

 

[Charlaquin]

If they just make a new SRD that is only accessible in the new OGL, but leave earlier SRDs available in the 1.0a, I’ll see it as a fine compromise.

I mean, that’s not even a compromise, that’d be a straight-up victory for the OGL. That’s how it has always been understood to work. WotC has always been able to come out with a new version of the OGL and has never been obligated to release a new SRD for any previous version of the OGL. The issue is and has always been that they’re trying to say we can’t keep using the original OGL to keep publishing new content for the SRDs that have already been released under it.

But I think leaving SRD 5.0 and 5.1 out there is a hard line for management.

Sadly, yeah, I think that’s true.

 

[Morrus]

Okay, please help me out here. I understand this is not a retraction --it's a blog post. If this is not a sufficient statement of intention to retract, I'd like to help defend that position, but I don't follow this reading.

I don't see how anything could "always be licensed under OGL 1.0a" if the OGL 1.0a is deauthorized. I have understood deauthorization to be an all-or-nothing premise since the earliest moments of this discussion, and I don't see how that sword does not cut both ways.

Assuming it is legally possible, wouldn't deauthorization make it impossible to license anything under the OGL 1.0a, regardless of whether it was published in 2000 or after the release of the new closed license? On the flip side of the coin, if material published in 2000 remains licensed despite deauthorization, how do you weaponize that deauthorization to refuse licensure to future material under the same license?

The previous statement was that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a would be unaffected by OGL 1.1, and I understand why that is a nothing statement, or at least I think I do.

This statement specifically says that material licensed under the OGL 1.0a will continue to be licensed under the OGL 1.0a, and I don't understand how that's possible if Wizards' plans still involve deauthorization.

The new license will update the old one with verbiage to incorporate that, presumably. Sorry, I can’t tell you the exact mechanism they’ll use. I also agree it won’t be legally sound.