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


Haplo781

Legend
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.
 

mamba

Legend
Here's my question for the group: If the next OGL was the exact same except it banned offensive stuff and NFTs, and was explicitly irrevocable, would you go along with it?
I’d rather not mess with the offensive stuff (ie include it) as WotC has zero trust right now, so I do not trust them with this decision either, but I would not walk away because of it

Because, presumably, if the old OGL was not "deauthorized" or revoked, couldn't bad actors just use the old one to make NFTs and racist stuff?
Doesn't the old OGL need to go to prevent that?
certainly, but I really do not care if they do. This is a free country, for everything beyond that there are laws and existing licensing restrictions.

That being said, see my first reply


Is it only that people want to keep making stuff for 3e and 5e, or is it something more?
No, they can keep doing that under 2.0 just as well, or at least under any 2.0 I am willing to accept

My goal is that 3e, 5e, 6e all are covered by whatever OGL with essentially the terms of 1.0a. Add ‘irrevocable’, exclude NFTs, done
 


EzekielRaiden

Follower of the Way
Because they want nothing to do with it.

So. If it is a smokescreen ok. I don't judge here. I just state that. We will never know the reason. It being a smokescreen is just an assumption as it is that they are actually concerned.

I mean, I think they have reasons. I don't think anyone stood up and thought, hey lets make some bad PR.
...

Yes, obviously no one has ever, literally in the history of the world, earnestly and without caveat said "let's make some bad PR." Even the ur-example of "good bad PR," the New Coke/Coke Classic debacle, has explicitly been said to be a complete accident--I believe the quote was very similar to, "None of us are anywhere near smart enough to pull off something like this intentionally."

Like...I genuinely wonder what the heck you're going for here when you refer to something so trivial. Why even mention it?
 

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.
So like most upper management?
 

Bedrockgames

I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
Without and OGL 1 going forward I’m not sure I care nor do I trust them.

This was the original point of contention, I am pretty sure their main goal was to de-authorize the OGL for future content. So unless they state clearly they are not going to de-authorize the OGL, and that they agree the OGL 1 is permanent, I don't plan to buy anything from them again. I have plenty of D&D like games i can play and I can use the old editions of AD&D if I need.
 


Arilyn

Hero
Or they could just not bother! They could just say "we're not releasing new onednd content under an open license" and be done with it. That's their right and it's fine.

It's the revocation of the license that they've always represented as irrevocable that is the problem. Not the fact that they want to change the terms for new stuff that they're producing.
Yep, that'll work too. But they are after as much control as they can get.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top