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'.

 

[Charlaquin]

I suspect de-authorizing is headed for a court near you in the near future.

I sure hope so, cause with this move I think the boycott is done for.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

"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.

If this was actually about being against biogtry they could refer concerns to binding arbitration, it's not really about that, it's about being able to take out competitor at anytime by declaring what they publish "harmful" not even hateful and they don't have to defend their reasoning before anyone.

 

[S'mon]

It seems to be working already.

My son read the new WoTC press release and said:

"This one is going to fool people of above average intelligence!"

 

[Charlaquin]

This bit:

• Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

It’s not wrong. It’s the one thing WotC cannot bend on here, because 1.2 will be worthless as long as people who don’t like it can still use 1.0.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

Not just D&D-y things like owlbears. If you actually read what they’re releasing under Creative Commons, it does not include any monsters, spells, races, classes, traps, or magic items at all.

It's completely worthless.

 

[Jaeger]

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.

Which will never happen.

It would defeat the whole purpose of 1.2; Which is to give Wotc more control over their IP.

I don't understand why anyone would be okay with strangers enforcing any kind of "Morality Clause".

Because:

Even if WoTC is on your side against racism at the moment, you have no guarantee they will always be the good guys. ...

Exactly.

WotC = Literally the same people that recently put Slave Space Monkeys in NuSpellJammer.

"Oh, but they fixed it, and said that they would be really really good from now on!"

And I have some wonderful housing opportunities near Yucca Mountain in Nevada. Hit me up in a PM...

 

[BrokenTwin]

Well, this is shockingly better than I was expecting. Appreciate the Creative Commons usage.
I do have to say though. I get why people want it, and in many ways agree, but being part of a group of people that have historically been on the wrong end of morality/obscenity laws, I want nothing to do with it in the OGL.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

“We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.

If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.”

So far not bad, add to that the VTT and no income reporting and no fees part from yesterday, and this is almost acceptable (still have to see the fine print ).
We are almost back at 1.0a and the negotiation has not even started

They could have saved themselves so much trouble…

This is why patience sometimes pays out. And of course voicing your opinion.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Yes, I am one of those that what you state is not clear for. It is far from obvious to me it can apply to their OGC contributions, as the agreement between you and the third party specifically specify that you agree Wizards of the Coast is allowed to publish "new versions", and that you agree there is certain rights associated with any (authorized) version.

I lean towards thinking you will need a 1.2 license for the WotC bit and a 1.0a for the 1.0a-licensed 3PP stuff you use. Now, I can't see any reason why this wouldn't cover you, but I'm far from confident WotC won't take exception with the inclusion of those 1.0a licenses in new products and growl loudly in legalese.

It's also a very messy arrangement.

 

[Kai Lord]

How can the original OGL be "deauthorized" for future use but "perpetual" (and apparently irrevocable) for all prior published material? It seems like they're just making up a legal stipulation that needs to be all or nothing, ie permanently irrevocable OR null and void for even previously published material but not a weird and arbitrary hybrid of the two.