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...

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.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
As someone fighting to keep their livelihood here, I would feel really awful throwing anyone else under the bus just to get my bit safeguarded. For all I know, someone's been working on a movie for a year that somehow uses SRD material (seems unlikely, but it's a possibility). So absolutely no compromise based on types of content for me.

The only concessions I'm willing to make here is WotC get to decide content restrictions for anything they publish in new SRDs from this moment on by using a new license, and that anyone that agrees to that new license can be bound by it not to use the older ones any more. Anyone that simply wants to remain under the old licenses and use only the SRDs released under those needs to be continued to allowed to do so.
I don't think it's throwing someone under the bus unless you know about it and do it anyway, though I do understand what you are saying. If someone does come forward and says that they are working on a movie, I will change my position there. Given the sheer expense, though, it's highly unlikely that anyone is.

I live in Los Angeles and have many friends in the industry. Movies are not something undertaken lightly. A cheap one is a million dollars. The companies that can afford that are already moving away from the OGL.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Yes, they could. However*, the existing license can never again be trusted, since apparently a massive corporation believes they can successfully revoke it. The only real way forward is a new license with a GPL3-like irrevocability clause.
Perhaps we're talking past each other, or perhaps we agree and yet we keep talking. :D

Wizards could release an OGL 1.0b that is exactly like OGL 1.0a with the word "irrevocable" added. We agree they should. There would be no need to "revoke" or "deauthorize" 1.0a. Publishers could continue to produce work licensed under 1.0a, as described in Section 9. Presumably no publisher would choose to do so, since 1.0b would be a stronger license in every respect. But similarly, there would be no reason for Wizards to claim or exercise a right to revoke or deauthorize it.
 




vilainn6

Explorer
From the OGL 1.1 Q&A leak.

“OGL wasn’t intended to fund major competitors

Since the beginning of this crisis, I didn't understand why people are so against this? It seems perfectly reasonnable from a business perspective. We are finally going to see design creativity instead of D&D clones.
 

Jer

Legend
Supporter
They can absolutely create a stronger license, and everyone encourages them to do so. Notably, they can do this without "revoking" or "deauthorizing" the existing license.
And what's more they've done it before! It was the GSL for 4e.

Arguably they're in an even better place to do this now because they can dangle D&D Beyond as a treat for those publishers who sign on to their more restrictive Not-Actually-Open Game License and stop publishing under the OGL entirely. Under the GSL they could only really give them access to 4e players and even Wizards couldn't make enough money off of us.
 



Remove ads

Remove ads

Top