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'.

 

[occam]

This idea of "things are different now, so perpetual agreements shouldn't be treated as perpetual" is reasoning that I find deeply unconvincing. WotC knew what it was doing when it released the OGL into the wild back in 2000, and the idea that they can break their agreement because of some nebulous appeal to "things are different" doesn't hold up.

If you got married twenty-three years ago, and just found out that your spouse cheated on you, would them saying "twenty-three years is a long time! Things are different now! The world has changed dramatically!" at all make what they did less of a betrayal?

I hope you realized after writing this how easy it is to turn around. In the situation you describe, would your spouse have a case to deny your divorce request by pointing out that your marriage agreement was perpetual? (To be clear, in most legal jurisdictions I know of, they wouldn't.)

And yes, this is an apt analogy, because in both cases there was an expectation that was clearly understood, and known to be perpetual.

Your analogy equates two individuals to a corporation and thousands of licensees. It's not that apt.

 

[jerryrice4949]

It's not scandalous ... but it's disrespectful.
But hey, it's clear that you love your corporate overlords and will happily take being treated as a subhuman. Enjoy that.

Your hyperbole doesn’t offend me. I am under no illusion regarding the relationship. WoTC is a business wanting to maximize profit. I am the consumer. If they produce a product I like at a price point I think is fair and I can afford I may buy it. This is a voluntary relationship. I am not sure why you have such a visceral reaction to all this.

 

[Fendulum]

The problem here is 1.2 only applies specifically to WotC content, there's no real explanation of how to combine WotC content and 3PP content when 1.2 itself can't be used for 3PP content, implying we need to also include 1.0a for that.

This is a really good point.

The way OGL 1.0a works, everything relying on OGL 1.0a is automatically itself licensed under OGL 1.0a (with certain limits for non-mechanics and story elements/"Product Identity"). If you deauthorize OGL 1.0a, and the deauthorization is valid, are those licenses still valid? The answer might be yes but it's unclear, which creates a lot of uncertainty for publishers. WOTC can re-license its own content under OGL 1.2 and presumably Paizo and some other big players would be cooperative about re-licensing their stuff too but that wouldn't necessarily extend to more minor or now-defunct players.

 

[Parmandur]

Depends how they define de-authorization.

They can certainly prevent any further licensing under 1.0a by pulling their offer.
They can't de-license already-licensed works.
They probably can't stop third parties using 1.0a between themselves, especially in that 1.0a requires the licensee to make that offer.

In terms of replacing the original license with a new one, and preventing further use of the old one. In the second episode, they even opine that if WotC ever presented the OG OGL as "open source" or "not replaceable" that this was a deception. And I think it was.

 

[Langy]

Having listened to the Opening Srguments podcasts on this topic...it seems that they can deauthorize. Their legal case seems plausible and sound.

Everything I've heard about that podcast indicates that they didn't know what they were talking about in regards to legalities or ethics.

 

[Parmandur]

This idea of "things are different now, so perpetual agreements shouldn't be treated as perpetual" is reasoning that I find deeply unconvincing. WotC knew what it was doing when it released the OGL into the wild back in 2000, and the idea that they can break their agreement because of some nebulous appeal to "things are different" doesn't hold up.

If you got married twenty-three years ago, and just found out that your spouse cheated on you, would them saying "twenty-three years is a long time! Things are different now! The world has changed dramatically!" at all make what they did less of a betrayal? And yes, this is an apt analogy, because in both cases there was an expectation that was clearly understood, and known to be perpetual.

WotC is not your spouse. They are not your friend. Being a customer is not a marriage or other sort of relationship.

 

[kjdavies]

And thats why I've been asking, because at a fundamental level I dont have my hands in the guts of these things, and others here do.

"What about the whole line of 3.5/PF1/PF2 and OSR content."

This has not (I think) been answered officially.

If it's already been published, it's unaffected. That's all they've said.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Well I would wager WoTC does not consider the OGL a contract and most contracts don’t last forever.

It's entirely possible they do not. However, the law does, and their OGL contract with us does not have an expiry date.

If I sell you something, that's covered under a contract of sale, represents the vast majority of contracts in existence, and certainly does last forever.

If I sell you a perpetual license for software, that license does not expire, and can only be terminated under the clauses contained within the license itself.

If I give you a perpetual license, I can revoke it at any time, as long as there was no consideration (money or obligations) involved.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Depends how they define de-authorization.

They can certainly prevent any further licensing under 1.0a by pulling their offer.
They can't de-license already-licensed works.
They probably can't stop third parties using 1.0a between themselves, especially in that 1.0a requires the licensee to make that offer.

So we just initiate protective replication and sublicense between ourselves? I've made a repository here. The owlbear is probably in there somewhere.

The Oglebogle 1.0

docs.google.com

The Oglebogle v1.0 - Google Drive

drive.google.com

 

[Scribe]

If it's already been published, it's unaffected. That's all they've said.

Then I suppose I'll use the PF1 Magic Missile and Owlbear.