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]

I plan to send the following feedback in the survey:

• WOTC proposes to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a, in contravention of the document's clear intent and in defiance of WOTC's previous assurances that the OGL 1.0a could not be revoked. This is treacherous and unlawful (i.e., chaotic evil). Do not attempt to unilaterally revoke rights that were granted perpetually and which have been relied on by an entire industry.
  [*]The OGL 1.0a includes a perpetual license to sub-license the granted content. It is completely unclear how existing and previously published works can remain licensed under the OGL 1.0a without retaining the right to sub-license content under OGL 1.0a.
  [*]The proposed OGL 1.2 is written as a license agreement solely between a user and Wizards of the Coast, and defines the "licensed content" solely as WOTC's IP. This does not reflect the purpose and nature of the original OGL as an open license with a "share forward" function.
  [*]Hundreds of publishers have contributed Open Game Content to the commons under the existing OGL. WOTC does not have the moral or legal right to unilaterally restrict access to this vast body of work.
  [*]According to section 9 of the OGL 1.0a, Open Game Content licensed OGL 1.0a can be used under any authorized version of the OGL! It is EXTREMELY unclear what would become of this large body of work which would effectively be "inherited" by the OGL 1.2, since the OGL 1.2 only contains provisions for the use of content owned by WOTC. Do not authorize a new version of the OGL that fails to clearly state the status of existing material already designated as Open Game Content and as Product Identity!
  [*]The proposed OGL 1.2 appears to "claw back" content which was previously released as Open Game Content by WOTC, namely the SRD's for 3e, 3.5, and d20 Modern. This is inappropriate and unacceptable. All existing Open Game Content must remain open.
  [*]Under OGL 1.0a, it is possible to combine material released as Open Game Content by multiple publishers. For example, it is possible for a creator to take a monster released as Open Game Content in Paizo's "Pathfinder Bestiary 3", and use it together with the content released under the 5e SRD. There is no clear mechanism to do so under OGL 1.2. This VASTLY reduces the amount of resources available for creators to draw on when creating OGL products.
  [*]The OGL 1.0a allows publishers to fully support their OGL product lines with any type of content including software tools (character managers, random treasure generators, etc.) and video game adaptations. The proposed OGL 1.2 appears to unlawfully restrict these widely used (and perpetually granted) rights.
  [*]The original OGL 1.0a created a safe habour for publishers, by making it clear that publishers who followed the clearly defined terms of the license would be protected against any interference or legal action by WOTC. The proposed OGL 1.2 introduces ambiguous terms about harmful or obscene content, and allows WOTC the power to terminate the license based on these ambiguous terms, thus introducing a new risk to businesses seeking to operate under the OGL 1.2.
  

In consideration for reading this forum post, You are granted a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, copy, modify, distribute, and potate it for any purposes including but not limited to WOTC surveys.

That covers almost all of my concerns. Personally, I will be adding that no form of media should be excluded from the new OGL, or receive any additional restrictions (the idea that a VTT cannot animate a spell is utterly ludicrous, even if I can already see a loophole that would let someone do it), and that clarification is needed as to what constitutes a "VTT" - what about software tools that do automation of game tasks but do not actually provide a tabletop, for example.

 

[mamba]

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.

You mean something like "This license permits you to combine Your Content with Our Licensed Content and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license." because that is in there... and it doers not just mean you can include our content in your product, because that is a separate item ("You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license.")

EDIT: better yet "You can make your Content available under any terms you choose but you may not change the terms under which we make Our Licensed Content available."

 

[Parmandur]

They can claim as such as much as they want, but the fact is that their argument that the OGL can be revoked at will and it's good and ethical and righteous to do so is horseshit. The OGL was understood at the time to be non-revokable, and it uses the same language as GPLv2. WOTC has no special right in the OGL to "de-authorize" the original contract, and contracts are interpreted against the author when they're ambiguous.

WOTC can stop offering it, but they can't force third-party people to stop offering it, and the OGL specifically requires each licensee to allow sublicenses. Since third-party people have published the entirety of the SRD, they can't prevent people from sub-licensing from those third-party publications of the SRD.

WOTC can include in a future contract that people who agree to it stop publishing things under the old OGL, but they can't do it unilaterally.

I'm not a lawyer, and going to trial could result in almost any result, but how the law should be interpreted is clear and I find it very unlikely that something like this that would impact billions of dollars of economic activity via the GPLv2 connection would be thrown in the trash.

Just talking about the legality (ethics are neither here nor there): they lay out that if the OGL was ever claimed to be irrevocable, that was either incompetence or a lie based on the document as they read it. And their reading seems legit.

 

[Scribe]

I plan to send the following feedback in the survey:

• WOTC proposes to deauthorize the OGL 1.0a, in contravention of the document's clear intent and in defiance of WOTC's previous assurances that the OGL 1.0a could not be revoked. This is treacherous and unlawful (i.e., chaotic evil). Do not attempt to unilaterally revoke rights that were granted perpetually and which have been relied on by an entire industry.
• The OGL 1.0a includes a perpetual license to sub-license the granted content. It is completely unclear how existing and previously published works can remain licensed under the OGL 1.0a without retaining the right to sub-license content under OGL 1.0a.
• The proposed OGL 1.2 is written as a license agreement solely between a user and Wizards of the Coast, and defines the "licensed content" solely as WOTC's IP. This does not reflect the purpose and nature of the original OGL as an open license with a "share forward" function.
• Hundreds of publishers have contributed Open Game Content to the commons under the existing OGL. WOTC does not have the moral or legal right to unilaterally restrict access to this vast body of work.
• According to section 9 of the OGL 1.0a, Open Game Content licensed OGL 1.0a can be used under any authorized version of the OGL! It is EXTREMELY unclear what would become of this large body of work which would effectively be "inherited" by the OGL 1.2, since the OGL 1.2 only contains provisions for the use of content owned by WOTC. Do not authorize a new version of the OGL that fails to clearly state the status of existing material already designated as Open Game Content and as Product Identity!
• The proposed OGL 1.2 appears to "claw back" content which was previously released as Open Game Content by WOTC, namely the SRD's for 3e, 3.5, and d20 Modern. This is inappropriate and unacceptable. All existing Open Game Content must remain open.
• Under OGL 1.0a, it is possible to combine material released as Open Game Content by multiple publishers. For example, it is possible for a creator to take a monster released as Open Game Content in Paizo's "Pathfinder Bestiary 3", and use it together with the content released under the 5e SRD. There is no clear mechanism to do so under OGL 1.2. This VASTLY reduces the amount of resources available for creators to draw on when creating OGL products.
• The OGL 1.0a allows publishers to fully support their OGL product lines with any type of content including software tools (character managers, random treasure generators, etc.) and video game adaptations. The proposed OGL 1.2 appears to unlawfully restrict these widely used (and perpetually granted) rights.
• The original OGL 1.0a created a safe habour for publishers, by making it clear that publishers who followed the clearly defined terms of the license would be protected against any interference or legal action by WOTC. The proposed OGL 1.2 introduces ambiguous terms about harmful or obscene content, and allows WOTC the power to terminate the license based on these ambiguous terms, thus introducing a new risk to businesses seeking to operate under the OGL 1.2.

In consideration for reading this forum post, You are granted a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, irrevocable license to use, copy, modify, distribute, and potate it for any purposes including but not limited to WOTC surveys.

This is it. Bookmarking.

 

[Justice and Rule]

 

[Kinematics]

There's a lot of people here saying it's impossible to decide if something is racist or not, despite Twitter, Facebook, Google, ENWorld, Kickstarter, Reddit, and endless other groups having policies on acceptable and unacceptable content.

There are clear cases, and there are edge cases, and it's the edge cases that are worrisome. For all the policies, all of those platforms still make mistakes, but they also all have something this license doesn't have: An appeals process.

 

[Scribe]

lmao indeed.

I'll wait for the survey, 1.0 (3.5/PF1/PF) need to be left alone. Wizards can then naughty word right off.

 

[rcade]

Maybe I'm being overly hyperbolic, but does this mean that if Wolfgang Baur makes a "harmful" joke in the office and WotC catches word, they can revoke the OGL from Kobold? I know, it is ridiculous and wouldn't happen, but it seems like it keeps the door open for some ridiculousness.

Since Kobold Press is a corporation and Wolfgang Baur is a person, I don't see how Baur telling a joke could impact the use of this new non-open OGL.

I suspect this hypothetical is moot because neither Kobold Press nor any other major publishers are going to jump into Hasbro's shiny new locked trunk.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Just talking about the legality (ethics are neither here nor there): they lay out that if the OGL was ever claimed to be irrevocable, that was either incompetence or a lie based on the document as they read it. And their reading seems legit.

Then they just committed fraudulent misrepresentation to begin with. They’ve made assurances that it couldn’t be revoked in the past. At the very least, this is promissory estoppel.

 

[rknop]

There's a lot of people here saying it's impossible to decide if something is racist or not, despite Twitter, Facebook, Google, ENWorld, Kickstarter, Reddit, and endless other groups having policies on acceptable and unacceptable content.

All of those are walled gardens, with the company in question being responsible for policing the content within that walled garden.

An open license is nothing like that. It's not something that's policed by any entity, it's an agreement about sharing content.

This is why the proposed "O"GL 1.2 is not an open license; it's the license for playing in WotC's D&D walled garden.