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'.

 

[CapnZapp]

They're not going to use this to take down

You don't know that.

(I removed the rest of your post, but the point stands )

Even if you were the head of Hasbro, you can't say for sure how future executives will act.

So, no. Whatever we are talking about, please do not make self-assured statements like that. Can we be sure they definitely aren't going to do or not do it, whatever "it" is? No.

Since the trust is gone, we're going to assume that anything that they possibly can do, they will do.

Only by making a license truly open, such as handing over the stewardship of D&D fully (my emphasis) to Creative Commons or the like, can that trust be regained in the short term.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Let’s be very clear that the reason WotC is going after LaNasa is copyright violation. (And even with that, a conman who hadn’t really produced any saleable product is not destroying the industry or WotC) If LaNasa had a company called LaNasa Games and produced FATAL 2nd edition they wouldn’t care. Don’t buy into the idea that they are heroic crusaders merely wanting to fight the bad guys. It’s a well established con from corporate types in this era, basically a mirror image of LaNasa claiming to be against “wokeness” (he only cares for the coin and notoriety)

 

[The Scythian]

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

If you don't see an issue, then you don't know how OGL 1.0a works.

It's not that a contributor designates their copyrighted work as Open Game Content and then other people automatically get to use it. It's that a contributor agrees to give someone who agrees to and abides by the terms of the OGL a license to use their copyrighted work.

Licensees agree to the license by using the OGC offered by the contributor (Section 3). Licensees may not use any parts of the contributor's work designated as Product Identity (Section 7). They must designate their own OGC, if any (Section 8) and PI, if any (if they want protection under Section 7). They must credit the contributors of any OGC they use and acknowledge their copyrights in the Copyright Section of the license (Section 6 sets the requirement, Section 15 is where the credits and copyright acknowledgments must go). If all these conditions are met, the contributor grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Section 4.)

Section 9 of OGL 1.0a says that a contributor agrees to allow their OGC to be copied, modified, or distributed under any authorized version of the license, but that doesn't supersede the other requirements that the contributor agreed to. Even if license 1.2 is authorized, it doesn't offer any mechanism by which prospective licensees might secure a license from a contributor.

The language to do so isn't even there. You don't need to be a lawyer to realize that you can't use a license that doesn't define or even mention Open Game Content to copy, modify, or distribute Open Game Content. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that if a contract doesn't offer a way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use someone else's copyrighted work, they can't use that copyrighted work.

 

[Matt Thomason]

If you don't see an issue, then you don't know how OGL 1.0a works.

It's not that a contributor designates their copyrighted work as Open Game Content and then other people automatically get to use it. It's that a contributor agrees to give someone who agrees to and abides by the terms of the OGL a license to use their copyrighted work.

Licensees agree to the license by using the OGC offered by the contributor (Section 3). Licensees may not use any parts of the contributor's work designated as Product Identity (Section 7). They must designate their own OGC, if any (Section 8) and PI, if any (if they want protection under Section 7). They must credit the contributors of any OGC they use and acknowledge their copyrights in the Copyright Section of the license (Section 6 sets the requirement, Section 15 is where the credits and copyright acknowledgments must go). If all these conditions are met, the contributor grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Section 4.)

Section 9 of OGL 1.0a says that a contributor agrees to allow their OGC to be copied, modified, or distributed under any authorized version of the license, but that doesn't supersede the other requirements that the contributor agreed to. Even if license 1.2 is authorized, it doesn't offer any mechanism by which prospective licensees might secure a license from a contributor.

The language to do so isn't even there. You don't need to be a lawyer to realize that you can't use a license that doesn't define or even mention Open Game Content to copy, modify, or distribute Open Game Content. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that if a contract doesn't offer a way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use someone else's copyrighted work, they can't use that copyrighted work.

Exactly this. As I just posted in another thread, you can't consider 1.2 a version of the same thing as 1.0a, the mechanisms just aren't there to support its use as "any acceptable version." It's an OGL in name only.

I'm now convinced this is by design. OGL 1.0a allowed a licensee to sublicense their work, meaning their recipient licensees would enjoy not just the bits of OGC added by their licensor, but everything else up the chain, sublicensed solely through their licensor. So in other words, you'd get bits of the SRD (potentially even the whole SRD) without actually having a license with WotC.
I think this is one of the things they've specifcally wanted rid of. Under 1.2, any new user has to have their own 1.2 agreement between themselves and WotC, due to the lack of the viral sublicensing they cannot get it through other works.
Under 1.0a, I can pick up a Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook and get the SRD content from that directly, in a license that's solely between me and Mongoose which sublicences WotCs parts to me, and thus totally uncontrollable by WotC.

 

[Maxperson]

what is in 3.5 you need that is not in 5.1?

What does 3.5 have that 5e doesn't?

 

[Horwath]

What does 3.5 have that 5e doesn't?

Separate ASI and feat resource pool.

 

[Maxperson]

Separate ASI and feat resource pool.

I was more asking that rhetorically. 3.5 has tons that 5e doesn't . Half a zillion feats, 7 million races, 23454 classes, many more skills and so on. None of those is in the 5.1 SRD.

 

[Horwath]

I was more asking that rhetorically. 3.5 has tons that 5e doesn't . Half a zillion feats, 7 million races, 23454 classes, many more skills and so on. None of those is in the 5.1 SRD.

I know.
Well, sarcasm does not appear obvious sometimes in written form.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Let’s be very clear that the reason WotC is going after LaNasa is copyright violation. (And even with that, a conman who hadn’t really produced any saleable product is not destroying the industry or WotC) If LaNasa had a company called LaNasa Games and produced FATAL 2nd edition they wouldn’t care. Don’t buy into the idea that they are heroic crusaders merely wanting to fight the bad guys. It’s a well established con from corporate types in this era, basically a mirror image of LaNasa claiming to be against “wokeness” (he only cares for the coin and notoriety)

That case is mostly about trademarks, not copyright.

 

[demoss]

If your line was the OGL based on empathy for the people effected, they haven't reach it until the other SRD mechanics are also added to the CC and possibly the CC used be the Share Alike version.

CC-BY is closer to OGL 1.0a in action.

Nothing in OGL 1.0a required you to set out your original creations as Open Gaming Content. Using CC-BY-SA would require you to

 

[demoss]

They've already shown they're bad at detecting racism, and stamp down hard on anti-capitalism, and I have no doubt that they'll get mad about some LGBTQ+ thing sooner or later.

...or some art will be considered to suggest the existence of nipples.

 

[Jerik]

I asked earlier what from the 3e SRD is needed but got no answer, so nothing I can add at this point...

I didn't read this thread until today or I would have answered sooner. And I can answer not just with some invented hypothetical, but with something that I had actually planned to do that I cannot do without access to the earlier SRDs.

Maxperson hit on this a few posts up, but the biggest thing you're missing, and that Sacrosanct was missing in all their posts where they went on about just rebuilding the 3.Xe rules like the OSR games did with earlier editions, is that the 3.0 SRD is not just the core rules. There's a heck of a lot of content included in the earlier SRDs that isn't in the SRD 5. Just look at the monsters alone: there were about twice as many monsters in the 3.5 SRD than there are in the SRD 5. And that's not counting the monsters from the Psionic SRD, and the Epic Level SRD, and the d20 Modern SRD... There are a heck of a lot of monsters that were available through the OGL 1.0 that won't be available if earlier SRDs are no longer usable. (And spells, and magic items, and...)

Now, as for my specific example of how this affects me... one project I'd been working on is sort of a 5E-compatible version of d20 Modern. (Yes, I know such games already exist, but there were things I thought made mine sufficiently different. Also, honestly, given how many projects I've started, it's entirely possible that I never would have actually gotten around to finishing it, but that's not pertinent to its use as an example of something that requires the earlier SRDs.) Now, the rules I didn't need the d20 Modern SRD for. They were intentionally much closer to the 5E rules than the original d20 Modern rules. I was having classes corresponding to attributes (sort of), as a callback to how d20 Modern did that, but I was doing it in a different way than d20 Modern did; I wasn't just using the d20 Modern classes, and just the concept of having classes matched to attributes isn't sufficiently distinctive I'd be likely to get in trouble for it. So fine, for the rules the OGL 1.2 would be fine. In fact, since I'm not using any of the specific D&D classes and monsters and whatnot, I could probably get away with just using CC-BY, though I haven't looked closely enough at exactly what they're releasing through CC-BY to be 100% sure of that.

But I wanted to use the Urban Arcana setting from d20 Modern. And there's a lot of stuff about the Urban Arcana setting that's in the d20 Modern SRD. I couldn't use the name "Urban Arcana", but they had pages and pages of information about NPCs and organizations that were all Open Content. I can't use that without access to the d20 Modern SRD. The rules, sure, maybe, but not this particular content.

So you can just make your own content instead. Well, of course I can. And I was going to make my new content in addition; the (renamed) Urban Arcana setting was just going to be one of several settings released for the game, the rest of which were going to be original. But you know, it's fun sometimes to play with other people's toys, and to build on something from the past. I wanted to update the Urban Arcana setting not because I couldn't make up my own material, but because I thought it would be enjoyable to have something done with this old material, and I had ideas for some interesting directions to take it.

So yes, there are reasons people might want access to earlier SRDs. As for my game, if I ever get around to finishing it... eh, I guess at this point if WotC doesn't end up releasing the d20 Modern content through the new OGL, I can still release the game, just not under the OGL; like I said, I'm really only using the base mechanics from 5E so I don't really need the OGL for that, since they've been released under the CC-BY, and I can release my game under the ORC. There were some monsters from the 3E SRD and the d20 Modern SRD I'd been planning on using, but I can live without them; it'll just be disappointing to not be able to use them. And very disappointing to not be able to use all the Urban Arcana stuff I'd had plans for. If WotC does decide to release the d20 Modern SRD material under the new OGL... then honestly I'll still keep anything I'd need the SRD for out of the core books, and if I do use the OGL at all I'll only use it for the Urban Arcana setting, and confine anything I want to use from the 3E SRD or d20 Modern SRD to there. But anyway, I hope this shows that there are reasons to want access to the pre-5E SRDs, and people who want them to be included aren't just complaining for the sake of complaining.

(Fortunately, I already hadn't been planning on using any third-party OGL material, or I'd be in real trouble... if WotC's "deauthorization" of the OGL 1.0(a) does end up causing issues with use of 3pp Open Game Content, Porphyra RPG is really up a creek...)

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

CC-BY is closer to OGL 1.0a in action.

Nothing in OGL 1.0a required you to set out your original creations as Open Gaming Content. Using CC-BY-SA would require you to

It wouldn't be very usable for the purpose though. With OGL 1.0a, you can define the Product Identity and leave the rest as Open Game Content. Or you can do the opposite, more or less, and declare everything that's not already OGC as your PI. But with CC-BY, it's a nightmare. You'd more or less have to mark it section by section or something.

Furthermore, the CC-BY doesn't restrict your licensees from their usual fair use rights to your trademarks. And it can't.

 

[jgbrowning]

It wouldn't be very usable for the purpose though. With OGL 1.0a, you can define the Product Identity and leave the rest as Open Game Content. Or you can do the opposite, more or less, and declare everything that's not already OGC as your PI. But with CC-BY, it's a nightmare. You'd more or less have to mark it section by section or something.

Furthermore, the CC-BY doesn't restrict your licensees from their usual fair use rights to your trademarks. And it can't.

I wouldn't go as far as nightmare, but it definitely would require extra effort and deliberate forethought on how to silo materials clearly before entering into the work.

joe b.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Just to say, "boilerplate" doesn't mean "good."

Yeah, it's standard when we're talking about those lopsided one-way contracts websites have you sign to make a profile or whatever.

The OGL is not a standard corporate contract, and "boilerplate" should not be assumed to be OK. It's the foundation to an entire industry. Putting language in there that gives WotC power over your products and your legal recourses means that serious businesses don't use it. Which makes it useless as the foundation for an industry.

Boilerplate ain't gonna cut it here, and it's naive at best for WotC to think that it would.

it is getting tiring to see people goimg, um, bananas over a waiver of jury trial and sever ability provision because they’ve never read a single contract in their lives.

At a certain point, the hysteria kicked up is just that- hysteria.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

That case is mostly about trademarks, not copyright.

Ah yes my bad, was using the words interchangeably when they’re not.

 

[Langy]

it is getting tiring to see people goimg, um, bananas over a waiver of jury trial and sever ability provision because they’ve never read a single contract in their lives.

At a certain point, the hysteria kicked up is just that- hysteria.

I don't think the jury trial waiver is the part that people are mostly injecting to buy the waiver of any right to class or joint actions. Yeah, it may be "standard", but it also tilts the balance even further towards Hasbro.

 

[S'mon]

it is getting tiring to see people goimg, um, bananas over a waiver of jury trial and sever ability provision because they’ve never read a single contract in their lives.

At a certain point, the hysteria kicked up is just that- hysteria.

For an open licence I'd expect to see a severability provision like the one in OGL 1.0, in case of illegality sever the illegal clause & the rest remains in effect. Whereas this one says WoTC get to decide at their option whether to sever the clause or terminate the licence. I definitely don't think anyone is being hysterical.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think the jury trial waiver is the part that people are mostly injecting to buy the waiver of any right to class or joint actions. Yeah, it may be "standard", but it also tilts the balance even further towards Hasbro.

Great. Why don’t you explain to me, like I was a slightly dumb golden retriever, exactly how this class action would happen. Feel free to use fancy legal terms and case law.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Great. Why don’t you explain to me, like I was a slightly dumb golden retriever, exactly how this class action would happen. Feel free to use fancy legal terms and case law.

I have no idea.