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'.

 

[FallenRX]

This is basically a completely dupe.

The issue is this is still worse than the old deal, them asserting they and "deauthorize" is legally tenuous at best, and also the joke of giving a "irrevocable license" that they in their own terms and revoke for whatever reason, is peak legal arcanery.

This is just not good, im sorry to say, its just 100% a dupe, to try to tone back to response, when the correct answer is still.

Just. Not. Doing this.

The CCBY stuff is nice though. But its so little of the SRD, and on top of that, its fundamentally worthless because a good chunk of that is just stuff they couldnt really copyright anyway

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Another question: this license seems to say that for it to be valid, things published under it must include some SRD content and some of "your" content. That would suggest it is not a license for, say, Opend6. Is that correct?

The long legacy of those digest-sized third-party core books in the 3E era.

 

[mamba]

Yes. So it's still a non-starter and they're tripling down on the "it's to prevent discrimination" lie.

at this point I am inclined to believe them when they say that is their line. Sticking to it even now while giving up everything else leaves no other explanation.

I do not get it, but they are welcome to it.

 

[mamba]

yeah, i'm...very confused. the actual license here largely seems ok from my layman reading of it? i just...don't see the point of not just keeping 1.0(a) at this point.

saving face

 

[rooneg]

they are still open content, they just are not in the CC part

If it's got a morality clause associated with it and they're the ones who decides what meets the morality requirements it's not open content.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Important distinction here on the Creative Commons licence they've chosen.
They did not pick the ShareAlike variant, which means the license is not viral. Your work can include the core rules under the CC license, but does not also become CC-licensed as a result. You do have to add attribution and ensure users have access to a copy of the CC portion of content (via a URL, they suggest)

This, at least, is a good thing for anyone wanting to use those core rules alongside a licensed IP incompatable with CC licensing (or who just doesn't want to share their own IP)

 

[Malmuria]

- so which of the official 2023 wotc products are going to contain harmful and discriminatory representation needing an errata within a month of publication? That's going to be awkward...

- if you publish under 1.2, can you use open gaming content from 1.0, or is that deauthorized also? (see this thread)

- I assume no SRD for onednd.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

If someone says, "Owlbear," does a person think, "Woah, that's a portmanteau of an Owl and a Bear," or does a person think, "That's a D&D monster."

Oh most definitely. I just found it telling that the given examples were things they would probably win on in court but had slightly dubious claim to.

 

[Kinematics]

Wizards: don't call it an open license if you reserve the "sole right" to terminate that license.
(In this specific case "only" for hateful content, but since WotC reserves the sole right to determine what's hateful, well...)

Not just "hateful". Anything that is "that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing" (most of which have very vague, if any, legal definition). But it doesn't even have to be in the content of your product. The license can be terminated if you "engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing". (emphasis added)

So, for example, if you (or even one of your employees; there's no particular limitation on who "you" refers to there) go on a mad rant on Twitter over some controversial topic, you can have your license revoked.

Did you use a curse word? That could be discriminatory. Did you phrase things badly? That could be harmful. Or just being angry at someone can be seen as harassing. Better be sure neither you nor anyone at your company drinks alcohol, or some drunken rant can ruin you. Is there a statute of limitations? Doesn't look like it. Better hope you didn't say something stupid 10 years ago that someone can dig up and use against you. Also, satire and jokes better be clearly marked.

 

[dave2008]

OK. I've read the OGL 1.2 draft and I currently don't see any reason not to use it. I don't even mind the de-authorization of the OGL 1.0(a) with this. Am I missing something? Now, I don't buy their argument for their justification for the de-authorization, but that is another issue. This seems completely reasonable to me.

A few other notes:

• I can only be modified under limited conditions. Can someone explain to me what: "...identifying the attribution required..." means?
• 
• 
• You can use their "creator badge" instead of reprint the license. I like this idea.
• 
• They need to remove themselves from being the adjudicator of hateful content
•