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.

Screen Shot 2023-01-09 at 10.45.12 AM.png

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.


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".


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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad


log in or register to remove this ad



I don't understand the point of putting this up to a mass survey.

The people directly effected by this do not make up the majority of the D&D survey responders.

And the numerical feedback system doesn't allow for anywhere near the amount of nuance that a legal document requires.

May there will be a checkbox that says: I am a 3pp designer?
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
Not many 3PP(probably none) are making movies or video games. The compromise is to give those to WotC and they leave the 3PP who are making print, PDF, and social media content alone to continue on making content as per OGL 1.0a. VTT is the touchy one. We have 3PP for that and WotC wants it for their own.
The OGL isn’t stopping them.
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.

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

ou aren't getting what I'm saying.

Copying 3e or 5e and using not IP monsters is aaathe shortcut.
M
If Disney or Amazon cannot copy 3e or 5e, they are building their RPG from scratch or hiring a 3PP who hasn't been proven to have mass appeal.
Except game mechanics aren’t protected by copyright, so they already can make a D&D-clone, label it as compatible, and wotc has literally no recourse. They can try to sue, but Disney is exponentially more funded than wizards, and probably has lawyers with more experience in this type of legal battle.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Except game mechanics aren’t protected by copyright, so they already can make a D&D-clone, label it as compatible, and wotc has literally no recourse. They can try to sue, but Disney is exponentially more funded than wizards, and probably has lawyers with more experience in this type of legal battle
You can copyright the expression.

Another company would have to copy 5e in different words enough but ding the same things that WOTC can't sue.

And WE ALL KNOW what loopholes the wrong words in the rules do.

Suddenly in Disney and Dragons you can unequip and reequip your longsword for infinite attacks as you get 1 attack per equiped weapon and infinite "small actions".
 

mamba

Legend
The OGL 1.0a is not a license to use D&D IP. A CRPG with Armor Class, hp, Clerics, and hundreds of other things that are not owned by WotC is perfectly legal.

Or was until WotC and Hasbro decided that it wasn’t, which is exactly the problem.
it still is, no need to cast doubt there, WotC cannot claim to have invented HP, AC or clerics.

Let them sue everyone, fastest way to clear all of this up, learn what they actually own and bankrupt them in process, win-win
 

doctorbadwolf

Heretic of The Seventh Circle
You can copyright the expression.

Another company would have to copy 5e in different words enough but ding the same things that WOTC can't sue.

And WE ALL KNOW what loopholes the wrong words in the rules do.

Suddenly in Disney and Dragons you can unequip and reequip your longsword for infinite attacks as you get 1 attack per equiped weapon and infinite "small actions".
You think any actually major corporation would be scared of defending a fair use claim against accusation? Really?
 

mamba

Legend
All signs point to their plans being to bet big on their 1st party VTT. We know they’re working on one. We know they’ve been hiring a lot of people with experience in tech and video games. And, this move lines right up with that plan. If they’re betting big on a 1st party VTT, they don’t want to have to compete with the likes of Roll20, Foundry, and whatever else.
well, if you cannot compete with them on a level ground, then maybe scrap you incompetent 300 people strong team
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
You think any actually major corporation would be scared of defending a fair use claim against accusation? Really?
No you're missing my core point.

I don't think any major company can make a good RPG without stealing from WOTC enough to lose a fair use claim.

My core point is that there are few good, well designed RPGs that are "closed enough" and "broad enough" for any Megacorp to buy.
 

Remove ads

Latest threads

Remove ads

AD6_gamerati_skyscraper

Remove ads

Upcoming Releases

Top