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'.

 

[Scribe]

It's funny that people are so against WotC now that "defending literal bigots" has now become a hill they will die on.

Where's that happening?

 

[jerryrice4949]

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.

Holy crap on a cracker $600 million lost in share holder value, that is more then it cost to make the D&D movie. How does Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, WotC President Cynthia Williams, and D&D VP Rawson still have jobs at this point?

I don’t know that it is cause and effect. A lot of the stock drop started prior to the OGL debacle.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

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

But this process takes mkre than a year and costs them time and money. They probably don't want this precedent to repeat in masses.

 

[Incenjucar]

It's funny that people are so against WotC now that "defending literal bigots" has now become a hill they will die on.

Yeah, there's fuzzy stuff that WotC has decided is unacceptable or not desirable for their books but that some people like. But then there's actual hate speech in books like nu-TSR's Star Frontier's product.

You're here on EnWorld. You've seen the people Morrus and co have had to ban. You've seen the stuff spewed onto the internet. Should those people be allowed to make games? Should those people be allowed to create D&D content with a badge and advertisement on DnDBeyond if they can get enough Proud Boys to buy their PDF.

EnWorld has an "acceptable content" policy. Kickstarter has a policy preventing "Projects that promote discrimination, bigotry, or intolerance towards marginalized groups." These aren't new policies. Why should the OGL be any different?

Neither of these can weaponize their policies against a competitor.

 

[Scribe]

But this process takes mkre than a year and costs them time and money. They probably don't want this precedent to repeat in masses.

Right, they dont want to have to deal with legal process.

 

[jerryrice4949]

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.

I think this is pretty ridiculous. Arbitration is expensive for one and you don’t see brands like LoTR or Marvel offering arbitration to decide things when they don’t like how their licensees use their brand.

 

[EthanSental]

Reading Kyle Brink’s post on the OGL draft. I think he sincere in trying to get it right. It’s easy for people to feel burned right now and jump down that negative rabbit hole, but let’s wait and see how the feedback goes and what the changes are….a little positivity on the net is a good thing.

 

[Fendulum]

Forgive me if this has already been answered: it looks from the document that they're deauthorizing OGL 1.0 and licensing only the 5e SRD under OGL 1.2. So what happens to products that rely on pre-5e SRD content? I'm thinking particularly (because it's my niche) of the small amount of 3pp Pathfinder First Edition content that gets released under OGL 1.0. At least per WOTC, they can't use OGL 1.0 anymore. But they can't use OGL 1.2 either because the D&D 3e SRD isn't licensed under OGL 1.2.

 

[Reynard]

Hasbro wants the owlbear back as IP. Guess what monster is featured in the new D&D movie?

This draft makes it pretty clear that the real issue here is the VTT space. I mean, they attached the VTT policy to it.

 

[dbolack]

"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

This should have an arbitration clause.