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 ?

 

[The Scythian]

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."

There isn't really any mechanism for that.

In the draft of license 1.2, there are no provisions for designating Open Game Content, designating Product Identity, or crediting works, all of which are required under OGL 1.0a. OGC and PI aren't even mentioned, let alone defined. The terms they use in the draft are Our Licensed Content (at this point, only the 5.1 SRD), Our Unlicensed Content (currently, anything published by WotC that isn't in the 5.1 SRD), Your Content, and Licensed Work (basically Your Content and whatever Our Licensed Content you use). There's not even any space in that framework for OGC or PI. They may claim that license 1.2 is an update to 1.0a, but it doesn't even try to do any of the same things that the earlier license does.

I'm not a lawyer, so I can't properly parse the language of the section titled, "NOTICE OF DEAUTHORIZATION OF OGL 1.0a". They claim that this means that you may not use 1.0a (or any earlier version) to publish "SRD content", which seems to suggest that it may still be used to publish non-SRD content. So, you might be able to make use of non-SRD OGL 1.0a OGC by including a copy of the OGL and complying with it as required. I have no idea if that's a reasonable interpretation or not.

 

[mamba]

There isn't really any mechanism for that.

In the draft of license 1.2, there are no provisions for designating Open Game Content, designating Product Identity, or crediting works, all of which are required under OGL 1.0a.

yep, already designated, now I am just using another allowed license for it. I see no issue here, but IANAL, so I will wait for more informed opinions

 

[Umbran]

No people were labeled as racists except through hyperbole and strawmanning.

Mod Note:

To quote my colleague:

...So now, it’s time to be a bit more direct. The time of issuing warnings about this is done. Consider bigotry in RPGs a “third rail” in the OGL discussions: I see it, you get threadbanned.

Repeat offenders will be given sitewide vacations.

Are we clear?

So, you are done in this discussion.

 

[Justice and Rule]

"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."

Who cares when they can instantly terminate my license through their morality clause for no reason with no arbitration?

6. WARRANTIES AND DISCLAIMERS. You represent and warrant that:

a) Age and Capacity to Be Bound. You are over the age of majority or, if younger, have had your parent or guardian review these terms and agree to them on your behalf.

(b) Authority. You have the power and authority to enter into this license and perform its obligations.

(c) No Infringement. Your Licensed Works do not and will not infringe any third party’s intellectual property rights or any of our rights not licensed to you via this license or any other.

(d) No Endorsement. Except as otherwise expressly allowed by this license, you will not state, suggest, or imply that Your Licensed Works are endorsed by or associated with us.

(e) No Illegal Conduct. You will not violate the law in any way relating to this license or Your Licensed Works.

(f)No Hateful Content or Conduct. You will not include content in Your Licensed Works that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing, or engage in conduct that is harmful, discriminatory, illegal, obscene, or harassing. 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.

7. MODIFICATION OR TERMINATION

(a) Modification. 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.

(b) Termination (i) (ii) We may immediately terminate your license if you infringe any of our intellectual property; bring an action challenging our ownership of Our Licensed Content, trademarks, or patents; violate any law in relation to your activities under this license; or violate Section 6(f). We may terminate your license if you breach any other term in this license, and do not cure that breach within 30 days of notice to you of the breach.

Anything they say in there is basically meaningless with that sort of stuff in there because they can freely eliminate everyone's license as they see fit with no legal recourse, and then tee up "OGL" 1.3 with whatever they want. Saying you can't modify something doesn't mean anything when you can just take the license away and then force everyone into a new deal now that the expansive old one is out of the way and there's no legal recourse to be taken on it.

 

[God]

I think this is pretty ridiculous. Arbitration is expensive for one and you don’t see brands like LoTR or Marvel offering arbitration to decide things when they don’t like how their licensees use their brand.

It's not a license to use their brand. No one can use the D&D brand under any version of the OGL. It's an attempt to unilaterally reframe a contract and restrict access to game rules they explicitly made open 20 years ago.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It's not a license to use their brand. No one can use the D&D brand under any version of the OGL. It's an attempt to unilaterally reframe a contract and restrict access to game rules they explicitly made open 20 years ago.

In fact, the OGL 1.0a license actually restricts your right to use trademarks further than the law would otherwise. From section 7: "You agree not to indicate compatibility or co-adaptability with any Trademark or Registered Trademark in conjunction with a work containing Open Game Content except as expressly licensed in another, independent Agreement with the owner of such Trademark or Registered Trademark."

Expressing technical compatibility with a specific trademark is, under certain circumstances, legal in many jurisdictions, including my own.

 

[mamba]

Who cares when they can instantly terminate my license through their morality clause for no reason with no arbitration?

different topic, apart from that I agree that 6 is problematic, said so in other posts

 

[Justice and Rule]

different topic, apart from that I agree that 6 is problematic, said so in other posts

Sure, but that's my point. This isn't a deal, this is a placeholder. It doesn't give you anything they can't take away whenever they want, while you basically lose 1.0a by taking it. It's a sucker's bet, a rug pull for the RPG market.

 

[Greggy C]

Because that's the license used by the game we're trying to support.

If I try to release a supplement for Pathfinder 1e, and Pathfinder 1e is licensed under OGL v1.0a, I am licensed to do so also under OGL v1.0a (or a different authorized version of the OGL). However, if OGL v1.0a is revoked, I am no longer licensed to release my new content because Section 9 of OGL v1.0a is no longer in effect to allow me to do so. As written, I'm pretty sure I can't unilaterally decide to change the OGL v1.2 because the license that let me do so is unauthorized.

In other words, I deserve to be able to because Paizo has licensed me to be able to do so, and I am required to do it that way.

This is why it's a problem.

Alright, I see how it can get sticky if you are licensing from someone who can only license to you because they licensed it from someone else.

 

[jerryrice4949]

It's not a license to use their brand. No one can use the D&D brand under any version of the OGL. It's an attempt to unilaterally reframe a contract and restrict access to game rules they explicitly made open 20 years ago.

It is not often one is quoted by God.

I don’t see them budging on this and I wouldn’t either. Arbitration remains expensive and risky. Who is going to most for it?