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]

It's being glossed over that the morality clause isn't just what's in your actual product, rather anything you do publicly, too. So you better hope you live your life in your Sunday best 24/7/365. This is like a legally binding version of Twitter. If you ever do anything we don't like we'll cancel you. Wow. Best stay on WotC's good side otherwise you'll find yourself on the wrong side of a new definition of obscene. This is where it becomes obvious to most that putting things in writing that are defined as "I know it when I see it" are a terrible idea.

 

[Blue]

Also, apparently, any material but other 3rd party publishers, since the only kinds of content available are "Our (WotC's) Licensed Content" and "Your Licensed Content." it is still killing the whole concept of Open Gaming.

Oh wow, yes.

 

[MichaelSomething]

What WOTC should have done was compare their need to say no to certain things being published under D&D to a DM's need to say no to a player who wants to bring in certain races/classes/etc to their table. Half the board here would then jump to agree with WOTC cause they strongly believe in a DMs need to curate the style of their table.

 

[MarkB]

So, nobody's finding this part concerning?

Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.​

​

So basically, if they decide to find a crack in their own legalese at any point in the future, WotC can declare the entire license void and replace it with any version they please - or no version at all.

 

[mamba]

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.

Technically true, but nothing I will fight over

 

[MonsterEnvy]

Of course it matters. People and companies have entire game lines built around OGL 1.0a.

Yeah and they won’t be affected.

 

[Matt Thomason]

As someone in another thread just pointed out: the de-authorization is not in the license itself. Does declaring such a thing make it valid?

Concensus on this seems mixed so far.

Pretty much everyone was agreed they cannot do that for existing uses, and they are not trying to so that's fine.

They almost certainly have the right to prevent anyone entering into new OGL 1.0a license arrangements with themselves by just pulling their offer.

The important question is whether they have any power over, say, me entering into an OGL 1.0a license with another party. So far we lean quite heavily towards them not being able to prevent this, and as I've mentioned a couple of times above this leaves an interesting situation if I use another company's republishing of the SRD under 1.0a, which they seem to still have the legal right to offer a sublicense under 1.0a to me on (unaffected by WotC's deauthorization, whether WotC recognize this or not).

Which brings me to a rather strange hypothetical - can I continue to publish new supplements for my own existing 1.0a-published game by issuing myself a sublicense?

 

[Alzrius]

that is plenty, not sure what you were expecting, but that is already more than we have today

And yet less than we had a few months ago.

 

[Vaalingrade]

- so which of the official 2023 wotc products are going to contain harmful and discriminatory representation needing an errata within a month of publication? That's going to be awkward...

Planescape.

Because obviously.

 

[rknop]

I'm very irritated that WotC is trying the line of "We have to de-authorize the OGL 1.0a, because to not do so would be racist."

They're trying to pull an inverse-Godwin thing here, by attaching their cause to the cause of being against bigotry and discrimination. As many have pointed out, this is not a real concern. The folks at Hasbro might be worried about potential lawsuits that come from stuff derived from their stuff having things in it that people object to. But, really, I strongly suspect this is a cynical way to claim a cause they know many people will jump on in order to justify their attempting to destroy the open nature of all their previous SRDs.