WotC Unveils Draft of New Open Gaming License

As promised earlier this week, WotC has posted the draft OGL v.1.2 license for the community to see.

A survey will be going live tomorrow for feedback.

Starting the OGL ‘Playtest’

In this article, you can review a draft of OGL 1.2, submit feedback via survey, and learn about a Creative Commons license that puts D&D's core mech...

www.dndbeyond.com

The current iteration contains clauses which prohibit offensive content, applies only to TTRPG books and PDFs, no right of ownership going to WotC, and an optional creator content badge for your products.

One important element, the ability for WotC to change the license at-will has also been addressed, allowing the only two specific changes they can make -- how you cite WotC in your work, and contact details.

This license will be irrevocable.

The OGL v1.0a is still being 'de-authorized'.

 

[overgeeked]

Never mind.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Not just "hateful". Anything that is "that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" (most of which have very vague, if any, legal definition). But it doesn't even have to be in the content of your product. The license can be terminated if you "engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing". (emphasis added)

So, for example, if you (or even one of your employees; there's no particular limitation on who "you" refers to there) go on a mad rant on Twitter over some controversial topic, you can have your license revoked.

Did you use a curse word? That could be discriminatory. Did you phrase things badly? That could be harmful. Or just being angry at someone can be seen as harassing. Better be sure neither you nor anyone at your company drinks alcohol, or some drunken rant can ruin you. Is there a statute of limitations? Doesn't look like it. Better hope you didn't say something stupid 10 years ago that someone can dig up and use against you. Also, satire and jokes better be clearly marked.

Also, even if we decide that Wizards of the Coast are good, open-minded folks (and after the past two weeks, there are a lot of people who won't give them the benefit of the doubt), this is a club with which a future management team can use against future third party publishers.

If future management is a bunch of homophobes, this language is broad enough to say that mentioning the existence of LGBT NPCs could be enough to say a work is obscene. If that seems unlikely, I point you in the direction of Google News, where you will find a lot of contemporary examples of this happening.

 

[Ondath]

OK. I've read the OGL 1.2 draft and I currently don't see any reason not to use it. I don't even mind the de-authorization of the OGL 1.0(a) with this. Am I missing something? Now, I don't buy their argument for their justification for the de-authorization, but that is another issue. This seems completely reasonable to me.

A few other notes:

• I can only be modified under limited conditions. Can someone explain to me what: "...identifying the attribution required..." means?
• View attachment 273116
• View attachment 273117
• You can use their "creator badge" instead of reprint the license. I like this idea.
• View attachment 273118
• They need to remove themselves from being the adjudicator of hateful content
• View attachment 273119

Of course, IANAL, but from what I understand this means they actually limit their own ability to modify the license, and the only things they can change are:

• The specific ways in which you can attribute the license on your product (so if a new edition with a new ampersand design rolls in, they can change the current logos on the draft),
• The ways they need to notify people of these changes (so if a new communication method rolls in beyond the ones listed, they can add it etc.).

So, unlike OGL v1.0a, the new license no longer has any "authorisation" loophole and is actually made to be irrevocable.

 

[Matt Thomason]

OK. I've read the OGL 1.2 draft and I currently don't see any reason not to use it. I don't even mind the de-authorization of the OGL 1.0(a) with this. Am I missing something? Now, I don't buy their argument for their justification for the de-authorization, but that is another issue. This seems completely reasonable to me.

A few other notes:

• I can only be modified under limited conditions. Can someone explain to me what: "...identifying the attribution required..." means?
• View attachment 273116
• View attachment 273117
• You can use their "creator badge" instead of reprint the license. I like this idea.
• View attachment 273118
• The need to remove themselves from being the adjudicator of hateful content
• View attachment 273119

Depends what you're making.

If you're making a VTT with the SRD integrated and want to have animated spells or animated characters+monsters, then this license will kill your project. (Thankfully, I am not doing that, but I can imagine someone is). See my earlier post for suggestions how to get around this limitation, though.

If you're making a computer game (again, not me) based on the SRD, this license will kill your project. You could strip out all of the SRD spells/monsters/classes/etc and keep using the core rules under CC, though.

Both of those were (are) perfectly fine under OGL 1.0a. I still see this as them unilaterally taking something away that they promised they had given to us forever, and wonder how long before they clamp down further in the future (irrevokability clauses aside.) I do not trust them at this point.

 

[dave2008]

I think people need to actually look at what they're talking about putting under the Creative Commons license. It doesn't include Races, Character Classes, Spells, or Monsters. It includes the core game rules, but nothing else. This is enormously less than is actually in the SRD today.

Yes, but the whole SRD is in the OGL 1.2. Which, after reading the draft, I'm fine with (as it is specifically listed as irrevocable). There are few things to clean up with OGL1.2, but in general I am happy with it.

 

[mamba]

If someone says, "Owlbear," does a person think, "Woah, that's a portmanteau of an Owl and a Bear," or does a person think, "That's a D&D monster."

depends on the person, I’d say at least 50% of Earth’s population has never heard of the D&D monster…

 

[Reynard]

The long legacy of those digest-sized third-party core books in the 3E era.

I was thinking the other way. You can't apparently publish anything under OGL 1.2 that doesn't include WotC Open Content, if I am reading 1.c.ii correctly.

 

[Clint_L]

I want to hear more from lawyers and 3PP who have skin in the game. What I'm reading seems reasonable to me, but what do I know?

 

[rooneg]

Yes, but the whole SRD is in the OGL 1.2. Which, after reading the draft, I'm fine with (as it is specifically listed as irrevocable). There are few things to clean up with OGL1.2, but in general I am happy with it.

I am not close to fine with the OGL 1.2 as it stands in that document. I simply don't trust WotC not to use the morality clause as a weapon.

 

[Blue]

Let’s face it for the majority of people on this forum nothing short of nothing will change. all will be the same forever is going to be ok. Not sure how fair that is though. Times change and 20 years is a long time. Much of the rest of the world has shifted dramatically in two decades. Perhaps adjustments aren’t a bad thing.

The number of non-D&D games I play that use the OGL, including many with no D&D DNA but using it as an open gaming license, make this really still a huge deal.