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'.

 

[dave2008]

Reading this over again...am I missing something, or is there nothing in here that allows you to use the content of other third-parties who use this license? (They seem to have scuttled the term "Open Game Content" in favor of "Our Content" and "Your Content," apparently.)

Because looking at this right now, if someone hypothetically makes a really cool product under the OGL v1.2, I can't see any provision where I'd be able to use it in my hypothetical OGL v1.2 product. It looks like you can only use the 5.1 SRD.

They leave it up to you mostly. You can use CC or ORC or whatever to share your "your Content."

 

[Micah Sweet]

So...pre-existing stuff is fine, but no new 1.0??

Is that right?

Essentially. Keep selling PF1/LevelUp/OSR stuff, but...nothing new?

That is the question, to my mind: can someone like ENP keep making new Level Up products, for example, or not?

yes or no?

 

[Jer]

Thinking and reading a bit more - they've recreated the d20 system trademark license and pushed it into their new ogl. Those badges that people can put on their products to denote compatibility and the extra restrictions on content were both part of the old d20 stl.

So I think they can actually accomplish their stated goals without deauthorizing the original ogl by creating a new trademark license to be able to apply their compatibility badge and encumbering it with the new restrictions. Bad actors get the seal of Wizards approval revoked, nobody is confused about whether Wizards endorses them or not. It's part of why the d20stl was created back in the day in the first place.

Also the original ogl was a share alike license, and i feel like they haven't completely thought out what deauthorized but you can still publish or moving to 1.2 for existing products means for a share alike license (and as not a lawyer I'm not convinced I'm sure what it means either). If I gave my permission for you to use my work under a 1.0a ogl and you want to move to 1.2 but I don't what does that mean?

I'm going to include all that in my feedback to them when I fill it out. Along with the impacts that not including the 3.x srd has on the community that previous execs made them stewards of.

If this is a sincere effort to walk back and save face at the same time its close and suggests they're myopic in thinking its just about d&d at this point. There's a bigger picture than just d&d 5e that they've kicked here.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Oh, just caught 9(e):

"Governing Law/Jurisdiction/Class Action Waiver. This license and all matters relating to its interpretation and enforcement will be governed by the laws of the State of Washington, and any disputes arising out of or relating to this license will be resolved solely and exclusively through individual litigation in the state or federal courts located in the county in which Wizards (or any successor) has its headquarters, and the parties expressly consent to the jurisdiction of such courts. Each party hereto irrevocably waives the right to participate in any class, collective, or other joint action with respect to such a dispute."

Basically, several publishers can't band together to fight, which given the size of Hasbro Lawyers(tm) vs. the individual lawyer teams elsewhere, is a big deal. It also means that the EFF or someone can't join in if it looks like it might end up affecting open software rights.

Quick thing.

A lot of what people might think of as "nefarious," are actually standard provisions in most contracts.

It's hard to deal with all the stuff going around- I don't know how many times, and how many people, had to say (back when royalties was a thing) that licensing agreements are always about revenue, not profit, and that wasn't some evil trick.

Same here. This is standard boilerplate language. Companies (and the attorneys that draft contractual language for companies) hate expensive litigation against them. This is nothing more than a standard waiver of class action ... the whole "class, collective, or other joint action," is simply legal surplusage to try and get all of the various type of "class actions" (like collective actions as they are called under the FLSA etc.).

It's not a "big deal." It's boilerplate.

 

[Reynard]

if you aren't using anything in the new SRD, why would you bother to use the new OGL?

If you published something for, say Pathfinder, you would be required to use the OGL 1.0a, but if that is de-authorized, what do you use then?

 

[Matt Thomason]

if you aren't using anything in the new SRD, why would you bother to use the new OGL?

Well. If 1.0a is deauthorized*, and I want to use a spell from a 1.0a-licensed 3PP in my own product, I cannot actually do that under 1.2.

* As I've mentioned above, I dont think their deauthorization can legally prevent two other parties using 1.0a between themselves, but the new system provides no way for that further "chaining" of Open Game Content to happen.

 

[Cadence]

I like the change to what they can change, as laid out in 7(a). It's much, much less intrusive.

I'm not a fan of 6(f), it's nastier than OGL 1.1. Bolding mine:

"No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action"

Basically it's a "we say it's bad (regardless if it is), you have agreed to suck it up and not try to get it changed in any way including legal actions." This is basically the same as OGL 1.1 to remove the license from anyone, with the additional poison pill of you can't even fight it legally.

And so now I'll be suggesting arbitration of some sort in the feedback. "I find the amount of money your game makes offensive, so it's banned." seems bad.

 

[Jaeger]

It actually seems mostly rather reasonable. My main worry would be the morality clause containing word "obscene." What is "obscene"? ...

Whatever Wotc says it is.

If it's got a morality clause associated with it, and they're the ones who decides what meets the morality requirements; it's not open content.

^This is not hard.^

Any "Morality Clause" is a poisoned pill.

 

[Reynard]

Oh, GOOD catch.
This makes it even more important we get a clarification on whether OGL 1.0a can still be used between 3PPs, and is unaffected by WotC's deauthorization of it. Otherwise it's just pulled up the drawbridge for anyone wanting to use content from a 3PP work licensed under 1.0a.

That said, there appears to be zero legal basis for their authorization applying to use of the OGL between other parties. So it's more wanting that in writing to clarify their position than any real worry they could win a court case over it.

See section 5.

 

[dave2008]

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.

That is the major area that needs to be cleaned up. For me the clause can remain, just remove themselves from defining what qualifies. There are non-profits that do this (or so I have heard), use one those.