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'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

again, the part I thin I will put is how it should be challengeable with a good third party mediator... right now (holding the right to change if I find out something bad I don't know) I think Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia is a great example

 

[mamba]

I've honestly never expected 1D&D to be more successful than 5E. My natural expectation would be that it would be slightly less successful but still pretty big.

Slightly less successful is still wildly successful

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What do you actually gain from this new license as proposed, in your estimation? That you didn’t have before, I mean?

it appears to have the safe guard rails, no royalties and no 1 week or 6 month cut off on old things...

 

[Haplo781]

2 years. That mouse has 2 years left lol.

2 years is plenty of time to revise copyright law.

 

[Langy]

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)

I don't think you could get the SPLC to agree to do so, and you certainly shouldn't put that in the contract (especially not without their approval).

I don't like putting specific third party organizations into the contract for the simple reason that those organizations can change or go away. At the least you need a way to change the organization, but this isn't something you want WOTC to be able to change at any time for any reason.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You're treating me not agreeing with you 100% as rejecting everything lol.

no I'm not... you are literally saying up thread if it is in anyway not saying the old one is irrevokable you don't care... you have no give even if it would mean Pathfinder and Level up (and like a dozen others) could keep going with minor reworks

 

[GMforPowergamers]

i...literally didn't call you dumb. and no, this isn't just "something i don't like" - it's a license that can be revoked for whatever the licensor decides is "harmful content" at any time with no warning or ability to refute. that's not just "something i don't like" - that's a trap.

again I am going to add to the survvey that a way to appeal is needed...

 

[Haplo781]

I don't think you could get the SPLC to agree to do so, and you certainly shouldn't put that in the contract (especially not without their approval).

I don't like putting specific third party organizations into the contract for the simple reason that those organizations can change or go away. At the least you need a way to change the organization, but this isn't something you want WOTC to be able to change at any time for any reason.

"A nonprofit civil rights organization, to be agreed upon by consensus of licensees and Us."

 

[Justice and Rule]

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!

That's not really what was being talked about there: we are talking about Wizard's policy of being willing to take pro-LGBT and anti-Capitalist content down, which is not rehashing old bigotry debates regarding mechanics. I do not think @Dannyalcatraz intended to shut down talk about how Wizards monitors its content, especially given that it is one of the most important parts of the new OGL.

And you should also probably just let the mods do their jobs, and if you think something violates that report it. I believe there was trouble in another thread over such a thing.

Okay, that's fine. I argue with them when I disagree. It looks to me like the parts I had the biggest issue with have been addressed, and the single part I liked most is still there and several parts I was unsure or didn't have skin in, are there to one degree or another...

I have no clue what you had the biggest disagreement on, but whatever it was can literally be just reinserted because there's nothing stopping it from being done. In fact, you're basically empowering them because you're allowing them to get away with it.

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...

I never said it was under OGL, I was making a point that Wizards allows people to monitor its properties as such. And yeah, I feel like this does prove my point, given that they were forced to make changes to their book because they found the concept of "anti-capitalist" as being "political".

 

[mamba]

Yeah. I get that I can still use any other license I wish, it'd just be a lot neater to have a OGL 1.0a Section 15 to add mine to that copy of the 1.2 in there than have to include my own license page

(and still leaves the issue of how to combine legacy 1.0a content in there, which we really must get a definitive answer to)

ah, separate topic, yes, I want clarify on whether I can take any 1.0a content and use it under 1.2. I would expect to, given 1.0a's section 9 "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."