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.

 

[darjr]

I know for a fact they have read comments.
Also there is this.

 

[Steel_Wind]

That will always be licensed under OGL 1.0a. The only way that sentence makes sense is if OGL 1.0a is not being revoked or deauthorized. And if it's not revoked or deauthorized, why does anyone care about the specific language or terms of their new license?

This is not accurate. Revocation is not de-authorization. They can mean different things.

Something that has already been published under the OGL 1.0a is effectively licensed and lawfully released content; it stands on its own. What was legal last month is legal next month. It remains legal to own it and sell it, even if the OGL 1.0a is "de-authorized".

That does not mean, however, that additional new derivative material may be created or sub-licensed in the future, based on already lawfully released material under the OGL 1.0a, or indeed, under any other license. That is what "de-authorization" is aimed at preventing, going forward. This matters to 3pp which stops them from relying upon and creating new works based upon their existing works. It will certainly matter to those people who want to continue to use 5e, or would prefer to use a variant of same -- and don't want to move on to 6e.

De-authorization doesn't terminate existing licenses; rather, it closes the barn door and prevents new material based on the OGL 1.0a from being created going forward. Given that there is a REAL prospect of a "fork" in 5e coming in the near future based on the 5.1 SRD, published by Kobold Press, (or Paizo or somebody else) that is what WotC would prefer to avoid. Conversely, it's also what some ENworlders and other DMs/players might prefer DID HAPPEN in the near term as well. Project Black Flag drew a roar of approval from many 5e gamers. So yes, this is very much a live issue.

 

[darjr]

I don’t know the veracity or DM Shorts report, him having other folks give it the thumbs up is encouraging though

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't think it is fair to use Maggie Smith's image on all your posts, it really drags her down.
I understand you are trying to make your posts seem more adult, but any chance you could change your avatar?

Mod Note:

Unless someone is using a genuinely offensive/pornographic etc. avatar, someone’s choice thereof is generally immaterial to most discussions.

If it IS problematic, report it to the moderation staff, don’t call it out in-thread.

 

[darjr]

Ben Riggs chimes in.

 

[Princessmaker]

Just putting this out there - according to someone on a Discord server I'm in, it's less that nobody ever looks at the survey data and more that the data is restricted to a very few people who will selectively use it to push their own agendas. As in, if something they wanted to do anyway has a lot of support they'll bring that up, and if not they just won't mention the survey.

The numbers can tell you anything.

 

[Greg Benage]

This is not accurate. Revocation is not de-authorization. They can mean different things.

Okay, thank you for the explainer.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm at the point now where I wouldn't believe Wizards of the Coast if they told me Dungeons & Dragons was a fantasy TTRPG originally published in 1974 by TSR and is currently in its 5th edition.
I'm too frustrated and angry that I won't accept any olive branches, and I don't expect my grumpy brain will give them another chance for years from now.
And those of you who are siding with them - or even trying to be reasonable - I'm looking at as "enemies of the hobby" and seeing you as personally attacking something very important to me.
So what I'm saying is that I recognize that I'm emotionally compromised beyond the point of being able to apply logic to this situation.
I probably need to take a few breaks from the gaming news and these boards. I'm succeeding only in making myself (and others) more frustrated.
I'm going to go where people like games other than D&D for a bit.

Bye.

Edit: after reading the mod post, I will add: I think leaving is the best choice if you feel that anyone not for you is your enemy. This is not a healthy attitude and it does not lead to anything. It also reminds me at the poontless war going around just a few hundred miles from me.

 

[Haplo781]

Ben Riggs chimes in.



View attachment 273011

Person has opinion.

 

[Morrus]

This is not accurate. Revocation is not de-authorization. They can mean different things.

I mean, I don't think that matters. What matters is that WotC believes that -- or thinks they can prevail with that -- and nobody can challenge them on it.