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]

Not a lawyer but something like "the OGL 1.0 and 1.0a continue to be authorized for all Open Game Content not produced by Us" might work?

Yep, that or ideally something like:

For SRD 5.x, all versions of the OGL previous to this are de-authorized.
For SRD 4.x 3.x, and Open Game Content produced by third parties under 1.0a, only previous versions of the OGL are authorized.

(obviously, they're free to put 3.x/4.x in the top category if they prefer, it's just this is my preference )

 

[mamba]

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?

didn’t you give permission to use it under any authorized version?

 

[Gradine]

"We want our work to be shared by as many people as possible but we don't want horrific bigots to profit off of our work" is actually a pretty awesome stance, and exactly what I would try to do had I had my hands on any halfway decent property.

It's also super easy to not be a horrific bigot, like you pretty much have to try and make it core to your identity (see: NuTSR), if you actually want to be even a halfway decent human being this isn't something you need to really worry about.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Precisely.

All PF2e books out today are fine. But if one published after this all goes into effect references the spell Magic Missile (a spell that exists in PF2e, to be clear), is it going on WOTC's radar to be dealt with in court or via C&D, or does it constitute a "sublicensed" product since it's referencing a version of a spell called Magic Missile that falls within an "approved" existing OGL 1.0a product (PF2e Core Rulebook)?

These sorts of edge cases will be a pain to deal with. There's a good chance WOTC won't care about those edge cases...but there's an equally good chance that if they don't deal with those edge cases, then somebody (maybe named Justin?) will build their entire business around living in those edge cases out of spite or ignorance, and bring down a future version of WOTC's wrath if it's not clarified sooner rather than later.

I'm pretty confident that legally, 1.0a-licensed works can continue to sublicense their content under 1.0a. I'm fairly confident that this includes sublicensing any SRD content they included. What I'm not confident on is whether WotC agree with this and will make peoples lives difficult We need to push for clarifications in our OGL 1.2 comments to them.

 

[Haplo781]

Yep, that or ideally something like:

For SRD 5.x, all versions of the OGL previous to this are de-authorized.
For SRD 4.x 3.x, and Open Game Content produced by third parties under 1.0a, only previous versions of the OGL are authorized.

(obviously, they're free to put 3.x/4.x in the top category if they prefer, it's just this is my preference )

Make 3.0, 3.5, and 4e SRDs and Open Game Content produced by Wizards available under the CC license (since it's now clear that the game rules are not what WizBro values and previous editions even less so) and I might be pretty satisfied with it.

 

[Haplo781]

I'm pretty confident that legally, 1.0a-licensed works can continue to sublicense their content under 1.0a. I'm fairly confident that this includes sublicensing any SRD content they included. What I'm not confident on is whether WotC agree with this and will make peoples lives difficult We need to push for clarifications in our OGL 1.2 comments to them.

They can risk losing a lawsuit over it if they want.

 

[mamba]

But....well, before I was mad and pretty well convinced it would take months of being mad in order to get something like this.

Right? We should just stay mad and see what else drops

 

[Enrahim2]

I just realised: This license still can be understood by some as that they are free to publish things under OGL1.2 containing third party material published under 1.0a without attribution. After all, it could be seen as an authorized update to that OGL under section 9.

 

[Jer]

didn’t you give permission to use it under any authorized version?

But 1.2 isn't a share alike license and doesn't seem to include provisions for building on others works so I'm not sure how that works.

 

[Nikosandros]

The point of a perpetual license is that it doesn't change.

Exactly. And the point of an open license is that it is open. You don't get to curate what is published under it.