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'.

 

[Azzy]

Also, even if we decide that Wizards of the Coast are good, open-minded folks (and after the past two weeks, there are a lot of people who won't give them the benefit of the doubt), this is a club with which a future management team can use against future third party publishers.

If future management is a bunch of homophobes, this language is broad enough to say that mentioning the existence of LGBT NPCs could be enough to say a work is obscene. If that seems unlikely, I point you in the direction of Google News, where you will find a lot of contemporary examples of this happening.

Exactly.

If there is going to be a morality clause, it needs to be tighter with well-defined language (preferably using established legal terms). Also, "We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful" is sketchy at best (and like you said, can be weaponized). I don't trust corporations to be arbiters of morality (or anything, honestly). It would be better if decisions were made in consultation with an established third-party (like the ADL, SPLC, ACLU, etc.).

 

[darjr]

Could an OSR clone rebase upon a CC 5e base? Instead if a 3.0/3.5 one?

 

[mamba]

It actually seems mostly rather reasonable. My main worry would be the morality clause containing word "obscene." What is "obscene"? Americans thought that Janet Jackson's covered nipple was obscene, so I would be worried trying to publish any sort of sword and sorcery inspired game or anything relating to any adult themes under such a licence.

use the CC part then

 

[Mercurius]

They're still "de-authorizing" the OGL 1.0a and still lying about it being necessary to fight discrimination.

They're taking one from politicians and Hollywood: masking economic/power reasons with social/activist reasons.

Plus, the whole concept of "harmful content" is highly nebulous and subjective.

 

[Jaeger]

Not for me personally. I will mention in the survey that this is the clause that needs work. Just remove themselves from determine what is hateful and I am basically good with it.

There are organizations for this type of thing (think CC for defining hate speech). I don't have the link, but it was provided in one of these threads over the past few weeks.

And if that organization takes a different stance from you on a hot-button political issue; would you still trust that organization deciding what's right and wrong then??

It's being glossed over that the morality clause isn't just what's in your actual product, rather anything you do publicly, too.

^Poisoned. Pill.^

Wotc will not farm out enforcement of their "Morality Clause" when the whole point of all of this is to give them more control over their IP...

 

[Matt Thomason]

So, is it still a question for the courts Ref: PF1/2?

That depends on whether having no license from WotC whatsoever gives WotC a case to sue Paizo over copyright infringement, as Paizo have made it clear they're not going to have any license until the ORC is ready, and then using that.

A slightly different situation to a 3PP that keeps on using the 1.0a license and ignores its de-authorization.

 

[Ondath]

Could an OSR clone rebase upon a CC 5e base? Instead if a 3.0/3.5 one?

@Sacrosanct's retroclones use the 5.1 SRD from what I recall, and if that's the case the parts of the SRD 5.1 released under CC should be enough.

I'm more interested in whether Level Up can be rebased on the CC 5e base!

 

[Reynard]

Yeah. I think 3PPs need some rather important clarifications on where this leaves them. The most important question seems to be
- Is it still possible to reuse 1.0a content from another publisher without requiring that publisher to issue a 1.2 license. If so, how? We can't use 1.2 because it's expressly a license between WotC and us and doesn't include the S15 "chaining" mechanism from 1.0a. Do we include the 1.2 license for the WotC bit and a 1.0a for the 3PP bit? How do WotC feel about that given they believe they've de-authorized 1.0a?

You can't do that becasue this OGL 1.2 draft says the ONLY material you can (actually, MUST) include is some of their SRD information and your stuff. You couldn't, for example, make an adventure using Tome of Beasts monsters.

 

[dave2008]

"We have the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful, and you covenant that you will not contest any such determination via any suit or other legal action."
No definition but wizard's matter. If they want to say including the word "love" in your text somehow is hateful they are fully free to do that, and you cannot contest it on a legal basis at least.

Also notice that this is the one term singled out for allowing for immediate termination. In other words - wizards can terminate whenever they want without any real reason.

Yes, that is what I am saying needs to change. My point is that I am not against a morality clause (not for it either), but it needs a 2nd draft at least. It cannot be under their sole discretion and it should be limited to your licensed work.

That is what the survey is for - give them feedback!

 

[jerryrice4949]

If ENWorld Publishing goes out of business, I suspect you will find yourself disadvantaged, @jerryrice4949.

This is not an "oops, oh well." People are going to lose their jobs. Some will lose their homes. Some will declare bankruptcy or get divorced (money issues are the top driver of divorces).

This is not "adjustments."

I don’t believe that is an accurate characterization at all of the current information presented today.