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'.

 

[Parmandur]

This is still not an OGL.

There's no share-alike, there's no OGC.

On top of that, the fact that WotC is the sole determinant of what is "hateful" and there's no resource whatsoever when they get it wrong is just not okay, because they will get it wrong, it's only a matter of time, before Transgender Katana Mice or whatever gets banned.

Yeah, I'm giving the morality clause a bad review and saying that. A morality clause seems reasonable...but it cannot be just "Simon Says."

 

[rcade]

I gotta say we are in a surreal world where someone can say D&D business effects Hasbro stock and they may have a valid point.

Revenue from D&D and MtG have become major contributors to Hasbro's revenue. In Q3 2022, Hasbro's net revenue was $1.1 billion from consumer products, $303 million from WOTC/digital gaming, and $211 million from film/TV.

https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-reports-third-quarter-financial-results

 

[mamba]

a bunch of demon lords (including Juiblex, although his name is misspelled as Jubilex, which means that you have to misspell it too if you want to use him)

this part is hilarious

 

[mamba]

View attachment 273142

Seems like they are really trying this time

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Yeah, I'm giving the morality clause a bad review and saying that. A morality clause seems reasonable...but it cannot be just "Simon Says."

Exactly.

The morality clause is terrible, it's vague as hell, it uses kind of inappropriate terminology, and there absolutely needs to be a formal (and transparent) way to demand a review if something is judged to be unacceptable, and that might have to be in court (arbitration might be better), so them ruling that out completely? No good.

Fix that and include a share-alike clause so it's actually an OGL (or change the name at least!) and maybe you've got something. It's weirdly pointless to not include the share-alike bit.

They also need to make it clear it can't be deauthorized. Irrevocable is good but I want explicit words saying "We can't deauthorize this, nor can the foundation who runs it".

 

[Charlaquin]

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

It’s a publishing license. That’s a contract. And this one does theoretically last forever, that’s why it says it’s perpetual.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Seems like they are really trying this time

Oh they're actually trying - this is the first serious effort, and the first attempt at ACTUAL HONESTY. They've got some stuff to fix but once that's done, it'll be good.

They won't fix it though - too few people will pick up on the lack of share-alike because almost no-one knows what that is. Maybe enough people will pick on the morality clause being unfair with no method to appeal though.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Revenue from D&D and MtG have become major contributors to Hasbro's revenue. In Q3 2022, Hasbro's net revenue was $1.1 billion from consumer products, $303 million from WOTC/digital gaming, and $211 million from film/TV.

https://investor.hasbro.com/news-releases/news-release-details/hasbro-reports-third-quarter-financial-results

Yeah, and out of that $300 mil, how much is DnD compared to MtG and digital gaming? Then take that amount and find out how much of the total net revenue that is, ratio wise to everything in total. Then ask how much of that is going to be lost because of an OGL announcement.

Sorry, but it's small potatoes compared to the company as a whole. The massive entertainment losses are much more likely a reason for a stock fall. Investors don't care about Dnd in general, let alone an OGL. They only care about bottom line profits. And if the OGL news doesn't impact profits significantly, they won't care. Looking at the ratio, I don't see how OGL news is impacting profits in any measurable. Most players don't care about forums or OGL. It's the reality.

 

[mamba]

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 license permits you to combine Your Content with Our Licensed Content and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license." this is how you combine it from my understanding, i.e. you are now licensing 'your content' under this license

If it were just about you using 'our content', then "You may use that content in your own works on the terms of this license." would have been sufficient, yet they have both under 1. (a)

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Oh they're actually trying - this is the first serious effort, and the first attempt at ACTUAL HONESTY. They've got some stuff to fix but once that's done, it'll be good.

They won't fix it though - too few people will pick up on the lack of share-alike because almost no-one knows what that is. Maybe enough people will pick on the morality clause being unfair with no method to appeal though.

It's still unclear to me how they intend to invalidate the previous license. I assume by a trojan horse clause in the new license? But that's not in the draft legalese presented here.

And I don't think I'm ever going to accept their new terms anyway. So I guess they'll have to sue me over this "deauthorization" nonsense in regards to OGL 1.0(a)?