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'.

 

[Justice and Rule]

the key part is

so for this to be true you must admit this infact more reasonable.

I mean, it's not less reasonable, it's just sort of the same request, which was plainly unreasonable to begin with. You just seem really, really desperate in all this to take whatever they give you.

 

[Haplo781]

Why does that strike me as a variation of “If you have nothing to hide you have nothing to fear.”

WotC being the sole arbiter of what’s offensive is not something anyone should be okay with. How long did they leave the Romani racism in Strahd? Didn’t they just have to reprint a book for blatant racism? Giving them the power to decide on this morality clause it a terrible idea.

The Southern Poverty Law Center or some other nonprofit civil rights organization should arbitrate questions of hateful content for everyone - including Wizards.

 

[Scribe]

so for this to be true you must admit this infact more reasonable.

Or that it is perceived as such due to flowery legal language and the appearance of a concession.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The OGL specifies thst an authorized version can be used. They can publicly announce a new version as the only authorized version. This isn't something they are making up.

Parm, from a legal perspective they absolutely are "making it up". It's a completely untested legal theory they're going with here. There's no guarantee it stands up in court.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

no, im not. i am accepting something you dont like.
that is okay, i am not asking you to change your mind

Your reaction here kind of looks like this to me, to be honest:

Hasbro: "Give up your family, or else...!".
You: "No."
Hasbro: "Give us your house then?"
You: "Okay."

You didn't have to accept anything from them at all, as far as I can tell.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I mean, it's literally already happened. Look up what happened to "Curse the Heart" and "Eat the Rich" on DM's Guild.

I don't know Curse the Heart, but I was very supportive on tic tok and twitter about the Eat the rich adventure... in fact I got told by many I was over reaching saying it should have stayed up as is.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Especially as they'll probably let a bunch of racist stuff fly and come down hard on pro-trans and anti-capitalist stuff lol.

honestly, that's not even the worst thing they could do with it - the worst thing they could do with it is use it as an excuse to shut down any project they think is too successful for their taste.

Specifically this trap, or "compliance technique" as it's called.

Door-in-the-face technique - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

damn, they've got names for just about everything, huh?

no, im not. i am accepting something you dont like.
that is okay, i am not asking you to change your mind

you're accepting bait. if you're fine with that, it's on you, but it's still bait.

 

[Langy]

The OGL specifies thst an authorized version can be used. They can publicly announce a new version as the only authorized version. This isn't something they are making up.

No, that's absolutely something they are making up. The intent of that clause (as explained by the author) was to distinguish authorized OGLs versus draft copies that were never released. There is no method for deauthorization in the OGL, and thus there is no way to deauthorize them.

 

[mamba]

too few people will pick up on the lack of share-alike because almost no-one knows what that is.

Section 5 covers that, at least as much as 1.0a did, where you could hide everything behind PI

"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."

 

[Ruin Explorer]

IK am very confused... can we discuss this or not? I thought we got red text back like 12ish pages ago saying no more discussing this.

I dunno, I might have missed that, I guess, I'll leave off until I've gone look sorry!