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'.

 

[LordEntrails]

I cant seem to find the actual documents, is anyone else having the same problem? I only find one pdf which is kind of like an introduction, but none of the substance.

Edit: specifically the srd, thats thw one I cannot find.

The SRD is not yet there. The most of the others are links in the article. The SRD link just goes to wizards.com

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Late to the game with 23 pages already…..but this is a giant step in the right direction compared to where we were at previously. Some will still throw a wet blanket on it but some also complain about onions being on a free hamburger.

1. The existing draft allows WotC, forever, to decide that your license is revoked because you, or anyone who works for you, ever wrote or said anything they consider "obscene." Keep in mind, there are issues right now with depictions of LGBTQ+ people being labelled as inherently obscene. I do not believe the WotC of today would do that, but I cannot trust the WotC of 10, 15, 20 years from now. They cannot be permitted to be judge, jury, and executioner.
2. The existing draft is unclear on whether the license also applies between two third parties (e.g. publisher A makes some open game content, can both WotC and other publishers use the open game content parts?), possibly even explicitly excluding such things. That would be a very bad state of affairs, and should be avoided.

Do you believe either of these concerns are illegitimate?

I don't understand it as preventing that, but I guess it could be clarified. That is what the survey is for!

Because the license explicitly describes only "Our Content" (that created by WotC) and "Your Content" (that created by an individual third party.) It does not account for the possibility that two different third parties, two different "You"s, could interact with one another. As a result of saying nothing about that, the (likely unintentional) implication is that you cannot do that: that OGC is exclusively something that exists between each individual creator and WotC.

It's the difference between "any participants can iterate on anyone else's open content, in whatever arrangements they want" and "individual people can iterate on WotC's open content, and WotC can iterate on anyone's open content, but two individuals cannot iterate on one another's open content."

 

[mamba]

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.

Where is this from, all I see is the license text

EDIT: found it, spell list is pages 105-113...

 

[Scribe]

The SRD is not yet there. The most of the others are links in the article. The SRD link just goes to wizards.com

https://www.dndbeyond.com/attachments/39j2li89/OGL1.2_DraftForDiscussionPurpose.pdf

https://media.wizards.com/2016/downloads/DND/SRD-OGL_V5.1.pdf

?

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Even if we deign to pretend thats actually something they care about...
.

One more time… we don’t have to pretend. They are in active litigation with an entity that is attempting to use their marks for their own, bigoted ends.

 

[overgeeked]

It seems to be working already.

Yeah. Unfortunately. Because a lot of people somehow believe that WotC is trustworthy now and forever to unilaterally decide what’s obscene.

 

[Scribe]

Not sure if the links still work, I'm not refreshing them in my browser @mamba

 

[Mercurius]

I haven’t made it through all of the pages, but MyLawyerFriend has a breakdown of this version of the OGL, including notes on what is good and what needs improvement.

Thaumaturge.

That was helpful. Here's a quote from the end:

1. The license is not expressly royalty-free, even though it does not contain royalty language. It needs to be expressly royalty free.

2. The license gives WotC broad rights to suppress Works they deem “hateful” — which is usually ok, but should be subject to some sort of good faith on WotC’s behalf. Also, Third Party Creators need to be able to challenge WotC as to what constitutes “hateful” so that WotC cannot abuse this power.

3. This license is revocable and can be replaced at a later date — which prevents the community from truly building a foundation on it. We could find ourselves just as easily in the same situation at any time.

Do not mistake me — this is a massive step forward from the proposed OGL 1.1. Congratulations to the community for making your voices heard, and thanks to WotC for listening. However, we still have work to do. WotC needs to address the remaining issues above (especially inserting full irrevocability and express “royalty free” language into Section 2) before this OGL is in a good place to sign. Let’s keep moving forward to #OpenDnD, and make sure WotC hears your feedback over the next weeks.

 

[Scribe]

One more time… we don’t have to pretend. They are in active litigation with an entity that is attempting to use their marks for their own, bigoted ends.

And they already will win that on the trademarks/brands alone no? I stop following that mega (giga?!) thread...

 

[MoonSong]

Great point.

Perhaps all disputes should be sent to the court of LaNasa.

There are courts, and laws. There are plenty of outside places where that determination can be done by neutral parties. Not by a self interested corporatiom that can use it uncompetitively.