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'.

 

[Azzy]

I don’t think this is something the SLPC would be involved in. They have miuch bigger fish to fry.

Maybe. But outside arbitration is a must.

 

[smetzger]

I haven't read all 32 pages...
Obviously it is better and maybe usable IF you are only making content for 5e or OneD&D. But they still don't get it that 1.0a can be used and has been used for non WOTC SRD based content.
I find this very narrow, short sighed and not an Open Gaming License. It is an Open D&D License for 5e and OneD&D and lays to waste all other iterations 3.5.

1) So, no more games like Mutants and Masterminds. Why?? How can they de-authorize a license when they are not party to any of the content released for a product line?

2) No new products using 1.0a. So, where does that leave Pathfinder (I know they are saying they will use a new license, but that wouldn't afford them the gentlemen's agreement under 1.0a) as well as other games and products based on the 3.5 SRD released under 1.0a

3) No share and share alike. That's not nice. If Level UP switches over to this license. Then no-one can make stuff for Level Up except Level Up.

4) Computer programs seem a grey area. Under 1.0a they were allowed, you just had to figure out how you were going to designate what was OGC. They specifically talk about VTT. But there are a lot of things that are not static files and are not VTT.

5) This OGL 1.2 isn't a legal document, certainly doesn't read like one. The Creative Commons is a legal document, but not this thing they are passing off as OGL 1.2. This means there are lots of areas that are gray and not spelled out precisely enough.

 

[rcade]

They're exposing themselves to a potentially very costly lawsuit here though.

They're doing serious damage to competitors who did nothing wrong.

Paizo published its OGL-licensed Pathfinder products under an agreement that all sides -- Hasbro, Paizo, other OGL licensees -- agree was valid at the time of publication. For 14 years, Paizo improved its rules through massive playtests with input from over 40,000 players.

Now Hasbro wants to break an open license and shut down Paizo's ability to improve Pathfinder. It can continue to be published but can't iterate on new editions, even though there's nothing in the original agreement that allows Hasbro to impose new terms.

The only reason Hasbro claims it has the power to do this is because it won Paizo's trust with an Open Gaming License that Hasbro promised for 23 years was always going to be around and could never be changed. Gaming companies that trusted the OGL are now in a worse position to compete with Hasbro than those that have never used the license.

How's that competition-sabotaging move from the overwhelming market leader going to look in a courtroom?

 

[Langy]

Okay so it's not everything I want, but I could live with it. I bet there are plenty that wont though.

I'm curious - did you notice the "WOTC can revoke this license at any time for any reason and you give up your right to object in any way" language? This, as written, seems worse than the leaked OGLv1.1 to me.

 

[Matt Thomason]

It's the entire REASON they are doing this in the first place. I've said it before and I'll say it again.
This is about WoW money. It's about charging that subscription money to players. That, in turn, is about eye candy and SIZZLE.

Absolutely. Which is why there needs to be a court judgement on the continued use of 1.0a. They're not going to add the necessary terms to 1.2 and the VTT policy, and even if they did there would be nothing preventing them slowly walking the VTT policy back as we get nearer to their own release.

I want the guarantee for other types of media included in 1.2. I do not for one moment believe I'll get it, but I'm not happy until either 1.2 gets it or 1.0a is clearly shown to be still usable via a court decision. I feel the latter is far more likely than the former.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I'm curious - did you notice the "WOTC can revoke this license at any time for any reason and you give up your right to object in any way" language? This, as written, seems worse than the leaked OGLv1.1 to me.

yup...and that isnt on any of my wish list...but i can live with it

 

[Justice and Rule]

yup...and that isnt on any of my wish list...but i can live with it

Then... you can live with anything, since they can just revoke this and replace it with whatever.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

yup...and that isnt on any of my wish list...but i can live with it

Can you live with them banning stuff that they feel is "anti-capitalist"? Because that's what they did on DM's Guild, under the guise of a morality clause.

 

[mamba]

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.

one of these days I will google that

 

[Justice and Rule]

Can you live with them banning stuff that they feel is "anti-capitalist"? Because that's what they did on DM's Guild, under the guise of a morality clause.

Whoa whoa whoa. That was too political, my good fellow.