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


log in or register to remove this ad


Scribe

Legend
Man it would be super hilarious if WotC took some small time publisher to court and in the end lost their copyright claims to any D&D mechanics claims because they have failed to defend them in the video game space for, oh, 40 years or so.

Honestly, this is my hope at this point. I want Wizards to go nuclear, trigger some lawsuit, and then have everyone under the sun absolutely naughty word slam them as the generic white bread toast option that they are.

When GW tried this, they couldnt even definitely win against some tiny outfit.

Wizards cannot defend the SRD. Not only have they made no claims to protect their 'IP' (as they call it) but its so derivative, so WILLFULLY generic...good naughty word LUCK.

Absolute CLOWNS.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play Wrath of the Righteous, as my Halfling Cavalier (cannot protect either WIZARDS) who rides a Wolf through the Abyss (OOPS AGAIN WIZARDS) fighting Demons (OOPS OPPS) and Demon Lords (OH NO) with his friends a Paladin (lul) a Succubus (NOPE) a Witch who is an Elf, a Wizard Kitsune (NOPE F OFF WIZARDS) and a Fighter!

Please, let it go to court. I need the entertainment watching Wizbro getting absolutely bodied.
 


eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
When GW tried this, they couldnt even definitely win against some tiny outfit.
And because they couldn't crush a tiny resin model company they decided to rename a bunch of stuff with really stupid names in 40K and in the case of the Old World, get rid of it entirely (only to then backtrack on it when nobody was playing Age of Sigmar licensed videogames).
 




Honestly, this is my hope at this point. I want Wizards to go nuclear, trigger some lawsuit, and then have everyone under the sun absolutely naughty word slam them as the generic white bread toast option that they are.

When GW tried this, they couldnt even definitely win against some tiny outfit.

Wizards cannot defend the SRD. Not only have they made no claims to protect their 'IP' (as they call it) but its so derivative, so WILLFULLY generic...good naughty word LUCK.

Absolute CLOWNS.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to play Wrath of the Righteous, as my Halfling Cavalier (cannot protect either WIZARDS) who rides a Wolf through the Abyss (OOPS AGAIN WIZARDS) fighting Demons (OOPS OPPS) and Demon Lords (OH NO) with his friends a Paladin (lul) a Succubus (NOPE) a Witch who is an Elf, a Wizard Kitsune (NOPE F OFF WIZARDS) and a Fighter!

Please, let it go to court. I need the entertainment watching Wizbro getting absolutely bodied.
This is the exact reason I'll still buy the next 2 Dragonlance books that Weis and Hickman release, even if WotC gets any money from the sale. Those books are a monument to WotC being beatable legally.
 

J.Quondam

CR 1/8
Honestly, this is my hope at this point. I want Wizards to go nuclear, trigger some lawsuit, and then have everyone under the sun absolutely naughty word slam them as the generic white bread toast option that they are.

When GW tried this, they couldnt even definitely win against some tiny outfit.

Wizards cannot defend the SRD. Not only have they made no claims to protect their 'IP' (as they call it) but its so derivative, so WILLFULLY generic...good naughty word LUCK.

Absolute CLOWNS.
I just wish one of WotC's in-house lawyers would explain that to them so they drop all this OGL nonsense and let small devs breathe easy.
I mean all the real "proper name" D&D IP is protected just fine - Drizzt and Ravenloft and Xanathar and Neverwinter and all that. They can get by just fine without owlbears and flame tongue blades. They just need to do something interesting to attract eyeballs and dollars.
But I guess innovation is more difficult than just letting the veiled threat of a frivolous lawsuits hang over everyone.
 

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top