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'.

 

[Matt Thomason]

I'm not either, but I really hope they do. They're our best hope on that front.

The thing most likely here is seeing what WotC do in response to a Paizo product that includes no OGL license.

 

[Reynard]

I'm actually kind of impressed (and sad) to see how well the anchoring seems to have worked. Lots of folks up in arms a week ago seem to be conceding.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Okay, WotC.

How about you just come out and tell us what you actually want.

Don't say say 'stop hate speech' because you are still profiting off plenty of it selling some of the skeevier old school PDFs.

Is it IP? Pirate gold? Man flesh?

It's man flesh isn't it? You have to tell us if it is.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don’t believe that is an accurate characterization at all of the current information presented today.

Since we've barely heard anything from the legal community yet, I don't think "this is no big deal" can be called an accurate characterization yet, either.

 

[Scribe]

That depends on whether having no license from WotC whatsoever gives WotC a case to sue Paizo over copyright infringement, as Paizo have made it clear they're not going to have any license until the ORC is ready, and then using that.

A slightly different situation to a 3PP that keeps on using the 1.0a license and ignores its de-authorization.

Yeah.

I had a meeting so not sure if anyone has called this out.

56-104 - Basic mechanics
104 = Spell Lists.
254-260 - Monster definition, not specifics.
358-359 - Conditions definitions.

So, yeah. The rules are there, but everything else is being protected and withdrawn.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm actually kind of impressed (and sad) to see how well the anchoring seems to have worked. Lots of folks up in arms a week ago seem to be conceding.

Because continuing to be concerned requires understanding the legal knots they're tying us in to escape.

 

[dave2008]

And if that organization takes a different stance from you on a hot-button political issue; would you still trust that organization deciding what's right and wrong then??

Maybe the ECRI? I'm willing to live with what they come up with. It just really needs to be out of the hand of WotC/Hasbro.

^Poisoned. Pill.^

Wotc will not farm out enforcement of their "Morality Clause" when the whole point of all of this is to give them more control over their IP...

It is not a poison pill for me personally, but it shouldn't be there. This should only cover licensed works. I will note as such in the survey.

 

[Matt Thomason]

The VTT policy is an obvious trap though, as there is absolutely nothing that indicate that that policy can't be changed at will, once the VTT segment can no longer rely on the combined effort of the entire community to protect them via the 1.0a outrage.

This is the concern I had since this started - that they offer the community just enough that we're okay with throwing someone under the bus because "95% of it is fine". Then they get more and more restrictive over the coming years.

 

[overgeeked]

Maybe I'm being overly hyperbolic, but does this mean that if Wolfgang Baur makes a "harmful" joke in the office and WotC catches word, they can revoke the OGL from Kobold? I know, it is ridiculous and wouldn't happen, but it seems like it keeps the door open for some ridiculousness.

Well...

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.

So one way they're masking this is by labeling it "hateful" when what's covered by the actual clause also includes other things.

Hope you don't have a parking violation. Double parking is illegal. This license gives them the power to yank your license if you do anything illegal. Don't do anything in public either...uh...wait a minute...

Oh...right. It's even worse than that. There's no mention of actually being in public. No mention of them having to prove anything at all. Ever. They simply have to accuse you of doing any of these things and your license is gone. And you explicitly give up the right to fight back.

We decided you said something obscene and your license is gone. Poof.

Purely arbitrary Sword of Damocles.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is possible. But they actually are currently involved in litigation with a legitimate Bad Actor in this regard (nuTSR). And they have a major motion picture coming out and other entertainment properties which have the potential to raise D&D visibility and make it more of a target for additional bad actors.

I think they should compromise on this clause by having violations determined by an arbitration panel including WotC and, say, two other OGL stakeholders.

There's no question the D&D brand is bigger than it's ever been. And no one should be surprised to see that Hasbro wants to protect that brand. Hasbro will never, ever, be OK with someone like nuTSR, or Venger, or others making D&D content that associates their awful content with D&D. That's why we see that stipulation, and I don't see it going away, even if in general I am against policing morality addendums in licenses.