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'.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Because you can also milk it and claim the same IP Disney does, by and large - that's why every Disney fairy-tale-based movie is followed by a number of low-to-medium grade imitators.

My argument is that Disney's exploitation of the work creates a chilling effect that makes subsequent exploitation more risky than it's actually supposed to be. See my point about making Cinderella dresses. Following their film, I need to consciously avoid the more distinctive elements of their design, since I can't really prove that my own design is from a clean-room process. But this is way off-topic unless we can somehow circle back to the owlbear.

 

[mamba]

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

DM's Guild is neither under the OGL nor run by WotC. You mean this?

"Hi! Due to the DMs Guild reversing its decision to not allow 'overtly political' content, we shifted to a monthly zine-based format which is released on DriveThru RPG. The first volume came out last month, and issue 2 will be released later this month!"

From the comments it sounds like they changed the cover...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

My argument is that Disney's exploitation of the work creates a chilling effect that makes subsequent exploitation more risky than it's actually supposed to be. See my point about making Cinderella dresses. Following their film, I need to consciously avoid the more distinctive elements of their design, since I can't really prove that my own design is from a cleanroom process. But this is way off-topic unless we can somehow circle back to the owlbear.

A chilling effect? Sure but I think it's less severe than one might really be concerned about. Disney as a corporation need to be destroyed utterly but that's kind of a different issue.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Because you can also milk it and claim the same IP Disney does, by and large - that's why every Disney fairy-tale-based movie is followed by a number of low-to-medium grade imitators.

yeah, and why the other urban fantasy stuff can use it too. In fact I would argue that with a bit of 'parody' safe guards you can even reference the Disney versions a little (carefully) and just slide more toward the original and you will be fine...

NOT SAYING DISNEY ISN'T ripping off the public domain by getting the dates for micky pushed back overtime you turn around...

 

[Ruin Explorer]

DM's Guild is neither under the OGL nor run by WotC. You mean this?

"Hi! Due to the DMs Guild reversing its decision to not allow 'overtly political' content, we shifted to a monthly zine-based format which is released on DriveThru RPG. The first volume came out last month, and issue 2 will be released later this month!"

From the comments it sounds like they changed to cover...

If you think WotC wasn't what made DM's Guild suddenly do a 180 on their policy, given it's a policy that doesn't apply on DriveThru, then I've got a bridge to sell you mate.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

NOT SAYING DISNEY ISN'T ripping off the public domain by getting the dates for micky pushed back overtime you turn around...

2 years. That mouse has 2 years left lol.

 

[Blue]

Yeah, but THOSE publishers can easily release under the ORC or another, non-WotC license, since WotC only cares about clamping down on D&D IP. Having to do so is an annoyance, but not nearly the problem that the "de-authorization" is for D&D 3PPs.

Define "easily". Studios that no longer have the IP license so they can't republish. Closed game studios. Abandonware. Any game based on material from those but haven't updated to a new license.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Define terms like 'harmful', 'hateful', etc. Remove the "you cannot appeal any of our decisions" clause and add in a clause about how if you appeal and win WOTC will pay all legal fees and if you appeal and fail you will pay all legal fees. Potentially also include a standard arbitration clause. Include an explicit judicial system that this will be done under (probably Washington state, like the rest of the OGL).

Also add in timeline requirements (can't terminate the license 10 years after publication) and remove the author behavior requirement, so that it's all about the published content.

I'm fine with WOTC making the initial determination, but it shouldn't be unappealable so that if WOTC does attempt to use it for nefarious purposes they can be pushed back on.

EDIT: Forgot to add in that they also need to define some terms. Added it in.

I;m not big on the "if you win the other side pays" thing on either side... but I would for sure think that as suggested up thread useing Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia as you main arbitor would be fair (although at least 1 person here dislikes them and I am ALWAYS willing to learn if someone I like did or is doing shady stuff...so I may ammend that)

 

[Matt Thomason]

There's no such thing as an open license that can be revoked at any time by an authority based on its own judgment -- which no one can even challenge in court. That's a closed license completely stacked in one party's favor. Putting "Open" in the name of that license is a joke.

Agreed. Just "opening our stuff for other people to use" is... well, that's just a plain license.
"Open License" implies to me that

• You can't change the terms, or revoke/de-authorize once its out there (you can still make it available under other licenses too, you just can't stop making it available under this one)
• You're inviting others to add their own contributions, and reuse the license for those
• Licensees issue a sublicense from the combined work allowing others to use a mix of your and their contributions under that license

Anything not meeting the above three tests fails the definition of "Open" IMO.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

Disney as a corporation need to be destroyed utterly