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'.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Unlike a well known brand name, that's not something particularly spread to those that don't play D&D. So, given that D&D players are a minority of people on the planet, you theoretical person most likely says "Huh, Owl + Bear. Okay, got it."

Also, since it's documented that it predates D&D as a Japanese plastic toy and that's what inspired the monster, that while the toy is not named specifically it the primary descriptor (the other being Bearowl). So it's easy to find prior work.

Did you look at the case I cited?

 

[Reynard]

Yeah and they won’t be affected.

Do you mean because OGL 1.0a with remain an authorized version? Because that isn't the assertion in the companion document.

 

[Alzrius]

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.

You're right. This is a major fault line, and one which makes that clause even more egregious. It absolutely needs to go (even more than it did before).

 

[Matt Thomason]

The effects of this license on 3rd party publishers seems complicated, definitely to be examined by lawyers. Perhaps how this OGL would actually play out in the community is unknown. I would approach this with some trepidation if I were a publisher.

Yeah. I think 3PPs need some rather important clarifications on where this leaves them. The most important question seems to be
- Is it still possible to reuse 1.0a content from another publisher without requiring that publisher to issue a 1.2 license. If so, how? We can't use 1.2 because it's expressly a license between WotC and us and doesn't include the S15 "chaining" mechanism from 1.0a. Do we include the 1.2 license for the WotC bit and a 1.0a for the 3PP bit? How do WotC feel about that given they believe they've de-authorized 1.0a?

 

[dave2008]

Who would you replace them with? There is no objective standard, as the US Supreme Court has made explicit.

Someone posted and objective standard on one of these threads recently. I can't find it, but I know it is out there. Alternately, they could create a non-profit or something to govern this with people not affiliated with WotC/Hasbro.

 

[Blue]

Okay, people smarter than me: why did they go with CC for the "core mechanics"?

Don't claim to be smarter than you, but my guesses are:
1. To associate with a strong existing license that they are doing the right thing. Like a magician moving the hand they want you to look at.
2. Those are mostly game mechanics, and for complex mechanics it's a big costly legal area if those can be copyrighted like simply mechanics the law has been tested against. This way (a) it's doing what an open license should do and remove doubt about getting sued, and (b) make sure they don't have to spend legal resources defending things they don't think they can win just to keep everything else going.

BTW, there may also be parts specific to Creative Commons license that I'm not familiar with.

 

[Scribe]

Keep selling everything that's been published prior to the license going into effect. Your line ends there, though, unless it uses the new license.

So, is it still a question for the courts Ref: PF1/2?

 

[mamba]

Given how much of D&D, even today, is just "stuff Gary Gygax saw in Bullfinch's Mythology, other people's fiction or a dictionary," a lot of this isn't -- cannot be -- WotC's exclusive property.

If I want to publish a book with an elf, a judge will beat a WotC lawyer to death with Lord of the Rings before they rule that wood and high elves belong to them.

that is not what any of this means / how any of this works

 

[Matt Thomason]

Who would you replace them with? There is no objective standard, as the US Supreme Court has made explicit.

If we have to have obsenity rules, my opinion is that it's an elected board of 3PPs and they have the power to hold WotC to the exact same standards as everyone else.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I hear this a lot, but this always just sounds like "the default state of the world is bad, so there's no reason to be upset about any individual instance in which it is bad."

I realize this is a tiny battleground in a massive ocean of problems, but just because this is standard makes it no less upsetting. I'd prefer a comprehensive set of legal reforms, but forcing one company to adopt a license that is effectively "sub-par" by current legal norms is something.

So ... on that.

No one is forcing other companies to accept a license. Just try, for a second, to imagine this from Hasbro's point of view. Or any company that offers a license.

If you are offering a license to people, do you want them to ... sue you in court on unfavorable terms?

This is not some bizarre evil boileplate term. If you are giving people stuff for free (however you want to phrase it), you also want to minimize you own liability moving forward.

The only way this can be, "The default of the world is bad," is because people are way too happy to say, "Ya gotta sue! RIGHT!" Like ... here. Which is why we see these boilerplate terms. If you want to blame people ... look around you.