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'.

 

[mamba]

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.

sure, that is definitely why they moved over, but if the extent of the issue is that they changed the cover, then I have no problem with this whatsoever, sorry

 

[mamba]

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

if no agreement can be reached, us

 

[Matt Thomason]

thank you in the morning when I am supposed to be working (as apposed to now when I am supposed to be sleeping) I am going to look this up.

Damn I remember playing that game. Was so amazed to hear Sir Patrick Stewart's voice at the start, then Sean Bean a bit further in. Was probably only the second game I'd played that had gone to the expense of actual famous people in it (the first being Wing Commander 3)

 

[mamba]

I never said it was under OGL, I was making a point that Wizards allows people to monitor its properties as such.

fair

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".

anti-capitalist is political, the question is is that a good enough reason to do anything about it

 

[mamba]

Do you have any idea how long it takes to negotiate bribes to senators? Do you?

they are not starting today....

 

[Justice and Rule]

what esily... I was part of the movement that made them drop the parts I hated most and keep the parts I liked best... that doesn't seem like giveing in.

In fact it would ONLY be giving in easy, if you assume we had the same issues goals and lines in the sand.

no I showed when they took the parts I was most mad at I was willing to consider going back...

again your line of thought only works if you think everyone has the same red line you do...

You're lines don't matter because they aren't backed up by anything. That's the whole point: they can just go back on what they want because once they get past 1.0a, there's nothing to prevent them from changing their new one.

why? if they just found out X% said this far no farther why would they try to go farther? they found there stopping ground.

No, they found out that certain people are just really willing to accept whatever they will give them because some people are just really more interested in getting the community to not fight Wizards than getting anything of actual substance from them.

How can ANYONE ever ask for anything if once you get some, most or all of it you are supposed to say "not enough"

Because you actually haven't gotten anything because you have no way of assuring that what you want stays.

no royalties... and no 1 week/6month limit
still no hate speech,
looks to me like I still have some, you just want me to have MORE of them

No, there's just nothing that assures that those stay in there. You keep talking like these are assured, but Wizards has not given any sort of framework that assures these can never go into effect.

they DID recognize it (so far, I mean they can back slide, and if they do I will change my stance)

Uh, it'll be a bit too late by then. You've already given up the defenses and they are already in the house. Trying to fight back at that point is basically useless.

It's like this I said I wanted to pay $5 and they said they wanted $25.... after a few back and forths we got to $10, and I said "fine good enough" if they then say "nah back to $25" I will jusst say "Nah back to nothing I'm not now paying $25"

What? No, it's more like they're trying to get you to sign a contract, you say "There's no bad stuff in there, right?" and they go "Uh, yeah, suuuuuure."

Man, this feels like a live demonstration of how people get themselves into rug pulls.

Your entire argument is "After they lowered the $25 to $10 they could go right back to $25..." my argument is "They just found out $25 wasn't working and got to $10, why would they try again?"

No, my argument is "It doesn't matter what price they say they are going to sell at because without a binding contract, the word of a known liar is worthless." If you want to trust a company that has been going around breaking contracts left and right on their word, feel free. I prefer my lines to actually be enforceable and not made up of hope and dreams.

 

[Justice and Rule]

anti-capitalist is political, the question is is that a good enough reason to do anything about it

I mean, it's political in the sense that everything is political. If anti-capitalism is political, capitalism should be political by extension, right? That's sort of the problem with this sort of enforcement.

 

[mamba]

Indeed. Except that you need an agreement with the entity licensing you that content, and 1.2 specifically (from the text at the very beginning) is only between you and WotC, and does not provide a way to add that entity

I believe this is an oversight and not by design, why else have section 5 in 1.2

"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."

 

[mamba]

They can just add those back in. Nothing stops them from just doing that.

"We may only modify the provisions of this license identifying the attribution required under Section 5 and the notice provision of Section 9(a). We may not modify any other provision."

 

[mamba]

What game should I look up for this?

Some Elder Scrolls, whatever was around at the time, Oblivion ?