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'.

 

[Scribe]

Holy crap on a cracker $600 million lost in share holder value, that is more then it cost to make the D&D movie. How does Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, WotC President Cynthia Williams, and D&D VP Rawson still have jobs at this point?

lol I hope that number is true and draws some eyes.

 

[Charlaquin]

Whats your point though, you had plans to release new material under OGL 1.0a ? Old material is fine.

Not sure why people think they deserve to release new material under an old license.

Because the terms of the license give them the right to do so.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

WotC = Literally the same people that recently put Slave Space Monkeys in NuSpellJammer.

To be fair: I would have never made the associations either. Because I don't have the cultural background. So they are human and now promise to be more careful. Seems like the right way to handle it.

 

[Charlaquin]

Let’s face it for the majority of people on this forum nothing short of nothing will change. all will be the same forever is going to be ok. Not sure how fair that is though. Times change and 20 years is a long time. Much of the rest of the world has shifted dramatically in two decades. Perhaps adjustments aren’t a bad thing.

That’s not how contracts work. It doesn’t matter how much time passes, the terms of the contract are the terms of the contract. No takeseys-backseys.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Holy crap on a cracker $600 million lost in share holder value, that is more then it cost to make the D&D movie. How does Hasbro CEO Chris Cocks, WotC President Cynthia Williams, and D&D VP Rawson still have jobs at this point?

Perhaps they short sold a few shares before.

 

[Nikosandros]

Because the terms of the license give them the right to do so.

Yeah, it's not like it's rocket science...

 

[ilgatto]

Although I don't think for a second that Wizbro trying to revoke OGL 1.0/1.0a is solely about "addressing hateful content" (as they seem to suggest in their statement) it may well be one of their concerns, especially in light of how they're obviously en route to moving D&D into the virtual world and, who knows, Virtual Reality. It wouldn't be the first time platforms like that have been used for all kinds of less savory purposes (e.g., Second Life) and I don't suppose Wizbro would be too happy if any of that would happen under their banner.

Having said that, constantly making it seem as if this is their only reason and "cleverly" using it to disguise the fact that they are actually only trying to "monetize D&D" is devious and, frankly, insulting to the folks they're affecting. In my opinion, of course.

I can see why this is not going to happen in a cutthroat corporate environment, but I often wish that folks would just sit down and discuss things before reverting to bullying and lying.

Yeah, yeah, I know.

 

[Matt Thomason]

How can the original OGL be "deauthorized" for future use but "perpetual" (and apparently irrevocable) for all prior published material? It seems like they're just making up a legal stipulation that needs to be all or nothing, ie permanently irrevocable OR null and void for even previously published material but not a weird and arbitrary hybrid of the two.

Oh, hey there fellow Lone Wolf fan!

Quite. If 1.0a works remain licensed, that includes the ability granted within to sublicense.
If that sublicensing is done by a third party, WotC's de-authorization of 1.0a for future works no longer applies, besides which 1.2 cannot be used to license their own contributions anyway.

1) They need to be very clear on what someone will have to do if they want to use 1.2 and still include 1.0a material from third parties.
2) We need to figure out exactly where we stand if we decide to use a 1.0a sublicense from a 3PP who has republished the entire SRD.

 

[Charlaquin]

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. sunk cost fallacy, much?

also yeah i don't trust the hateful content provision. i feel like they're fighting to keep that in as their last ditch effort to control what people publish.

They can’t keep 1.0a because as long as people can still use it, it really doesn’t matter what’s in 1.2. And that was the entire point of making 1.0a irrevocable. They were never supposed to be able to make a more restrictive license that could have any teeth.

 

[delericho]

Well, it's better. Still not good enough.