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'.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Agreed. They're just using hateful content as a convenient bogeyman. Frankly I'm almost surprised that they haven't tried to claim that the new OGL prevents terrorism, cybercrime, and child abuse as well.

It also provides a 100% immunity to COVID, excises your digestive system of all harmful content, and creates permanent world peace.

 

[Justice and Rule]

well, then include that in your feedback. Not providing any won’t change anything, just like not voting

I think you are way more optimistic about how feedback works. Even in playtests, not everything is up for debate. Given how they justify their changes through that (and how quickly some people here have been willing to adopt that justification) tells me that they are unlikely to change that and that this clause is part of the why they are doing it. I'll put in feedback, but I have no confidence that one of the absolutely necessary things that needs to change will.

because someone on the internet doesn't like them...

No, because they are assured by nothing but the word of a liar.

you mean that they accept what they are willing to accept... but you think that we are accepting anything, when we are happyish with it...

Again, no, I mean that they found people who will accept anything given that it stops the conflict, even if it doesn't actually materially change naything.

except I am not signing a contract... I can still switch to TORG, or Vampire or Savage World later... I am not 'locking myself in
I am saying "this is acceptable, but I reserve the right to find any future changes unacceptable.

Yeah, but that doesn't matter because you've given up your biggest bargaining chip by allowing them to deauthorize 1.0a.

what is there that assures them I will agree to any future changes?

Who cares if you agree, there is no more OGL 1.0a fallback. You've already conceded that in manufacturing consent for this rug pull.

no I have NOT... the defense is "I will take my business' elsewhere

I mean, I highly doubt that given how quick you've been to turn around on this whole thing.

wow...except like I said above, no contract, I can walk away anytime.
It's "Here is this deal"
"Okay sounds good"
if they change the deal I can say "Hey, that's not what I agreed to, and I am no longer interested"

This "deal" that you are "going along with" doesn't matter for you as much as it matters for 3PP. You're basically giving Wizards cover to destroy the OGL 1.0a and then set terms afterwards. Who cares if you say you'll away afterwards, they've already gotten what they want.

by finding a compromise they can live with and saying they will make some suggestion but this is good enough... sounds like how MOST deals are made.

Except that you don't have a deal, you have nothing. You seem to have problems grasping that everything here is completely under the whim of Wizards and if they don't want it, it's gone. Lando got better assurances in his deal with Vader than this.

I;m not taking there word, I am saying "this is okay, but if you change it I may not find it okay"

You are taking their word and I don't see how you can say any different. You've given them the absolute ability to blow it up at any given time; this is completely at their word. That you'll walk away means nothing given how quickly you were to come back in the first place.

no hope and dreams... just good old fashion self interest...

They don't "win" by changing... they win by finding the compromise and sticking to it.

No, the win by manufacturing enough consent by making people think they are compromising when they can unilaterally cancel the whole thing and set new terms after they get what they want. I didn't think that it'd be particularly easy, but conversations like this are really proving me wrong.

 

[Parmandur]

Well again, the language is nebulous and includes "conduct." That presumably means anything from a 10-year old tweet that someone at WotC finds problematic to a tipsy remark at GenCon to...well, whatever WotC wants it to mean.

But yeah, if I'm Kobold--or any other publisher--I'd be very hesitant to sign on to that.

OTOH, if I'm Kobold Press, this provides everything needed to provide D&D content without agreeing to the license: they make the stuff that isn't in the Creative Commons section, so business can still run.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

a slightly dumb golden retriever

Do we have to bring creatures that only exist in the wildest of fantasy situations into this? There's obviously no such thing as a merely "slightly dumb" golden retriever.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Again, no, I mean that they found people who will accept anything given that it stops the conflict, even if it doesn't actually materially change naything.

once again, they are the changes you don't care about....

Yeah, but that doesn't matter because you've given up your biggest bargaining chip by allowing them to deauthorize 1.0a.

that isn't MY biggest chip.... mine is our money.

Who cares if you agree, there is no more OGL 1.0a fallback. You've already conceded that in manufacturing consent for this rug pull.

don't care as long as we get open content to keep working... and this seems to be it. (and to be honest with the new ORC wont we just see things then)

I mean, I highly doubt that given how quick you've been to turn around on this whole thing.

great... so now your calling me a liar.

This "deal" that you are "going along with" doesn't matter for you as much as it matters for 3PP. You're basically giving Wizards cover to destroy the OGL 1.0a and then set terms afterwards. Who cares if you say you'll away afterwards, they've already gotten what they want.

do you not know how compromise work? They get something and we get something...

Except that you don't have a deal, you have nothing. You seem to have problems grasping that everything here is completely under the whim of Wizards and if they don't want it, it's gone. Lando got better assurances in his deal with Vader than this.

except Lando didn't have the leverage we do... they need us.

You are taking their word and I don't see how you can say any different.

I am taking that they want to make money, and they realize this was costing them money instead of making money.

You've given them the absolute ability to blow it up at any given time; this is completely at their word.

no it's at OUR spending.

That you'll walk away means nothing given how quickly you were to come back in the first place.

right cause I came back because they gave in. So if they don't give in I'm gone.

No, the win by manufacturing enough consent by making people think they are compromising when they can unilaterally cancel the whole thing and set new terms after they get what they want.

no you missunderstand what they want. They want money and power... the money comes from us the power comes from being talked and thought about... they don't "want" to screw people they just don't care if they do.

So they thought that doing all that other stuff would make them money... we as a group came together and showed it would COST them money instead... so now they are looking for the least they can give up and get us back. We each have to decided on our own when it is enough... we can disagree on what is enough.

I didn't think that it'd be particularly easy, but conversations like this are really proving me wrong.

It's only proving to me that you don't understand cause and effect. the cause of the draconian way they handled things had the effect of us all speaking out and effecting there money and power. They found what they would give back... that causes some of us to have the effect of saying "good enough"

You then think they can just go back to the original cause and not end up with the same effect.

 

[Matt Thomason]

No, the win by manufacturing enough consent by making people think they are compromising when they can unilaterally cancel the whole thing and set new terms after they get what they want. I didn't think that it'd be particularly easy, but conversations like this are really proving me wrong.

I personally agree with everything you said in this post. My worry since all this began was that any attempt to resist any change to 1.0a would gradually turn into a bargaining game between "us" and "them" with it eventually reaching a point where the number of "us" thrown under the bus would be an impact that doesn't really affect the vast majority of "us". As someone who supports collective bargaining and solidarity against larger opponents trying to throw their weight around, it saddens me to see people decide that the current offer is anywhere near acceptable when it continues to impact 3PPs so harshly.

However, I also find it hard to blame a player for caring mostly about what will directly affect their table.
I find it does help to put the overall thing into context though. I notice on Twitter that by far the overwhelming number of comments are negative towards WotC's 1.2 draft, pointing at all of the glaring problems it has for 3PPs, and for VTT/other software tool manufacturers, and understand that this is not really about negotiation, it's about WotC's belief they can change the terms of a 20-year-old deal and telling them "no" until they understand that deal either supports everything we could do before, or we simply just walk away. If we're all using Project Black Flag, that takes away all their control, therefore it is better for them to accept that many changes in 1.2 will have to go or they'll have no control over us whatsoever, and will begin to see ORC-licensed works claiming compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons under fair use of that Trademark at an uncomfortable rate.
Therefore, their 1.2 "deal" needs to offer us enough to make it actually worth taking, where the things we get out of it over and above the ORC license outweigh the extra trouble it causes us (e.g. figuring out the abomination of a license appendix we're going to need when combining SRD content with 3PP OGC). I also do not want to lose track of the rights they are effectively stripping from VTTs and other media in all of this.

 

[Maxperson]

if I knew that I wouldn’t be asking Also that is not entirely correct. 3e was not BX or 1e either, yet compatible games were created out of it.

Mechanics are not what I am talking about.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It's only proving to me that you don't understand cause and effect. the cause of the draconian way they handled things had the effect of us all speaking out and effecting there money and power. They found what they would give back... that causes some of us to have the effect of saying "good enough"

You then think they can just go back to the original cause and not end up with the same effect.

That's the definition of letting them divide and conquer. While I might not really care about them, I stand in solidarity with e.g. VTT creators. And they are getting a very bad deal right now, specifically. We all are, but WotC really, really wants to get an unfair and monopolistic advantage in that particular space going forward. You'd think their top brass were from Microsoft or something... Oh wait.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Okay. I'll give it a shot.

"Here boy. Fetch!" :::throws a stick::: "...and that's how you would do it." :::takes the stick out of your mouth:::

 

[DarkCrisis]

What’s with clause 52, Hasbro has the right of Prima Nocta on anyone who purchased One D&D?

 

[Jer]

What’s with clause 52, Hasbro has the right of Prima Nocta on anyone who purchased One D&D?

That's actually also buried in the End User License Agreement for D&D Beyond, so if you made an account there you've probably already signed it away. I think it's just a pro-forma thing that their lawyers put in all of their agreements.

Read your EULAs folks!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What’s with clause 52, Hasbro has the right of Prima Nocta on anyone who purchased One D&D?

that is not a joke... That is sexual assault not a punchline

 

[The Scythian]

using a different version of the OGL is one of those terms, isn’t it?

Do in your interpretation, this cuts off everything licensed under 1.0a from being used in works licensed under 1.2 unless it gets licensed under 1.2 by the original creator first. Correct?

In section 9, WotC asserts that it may publish new versions of the license, and then gives permission for licensees to use any authorized version of the license. Agreeing to and abiding by the OGL is still necessary for the licensee to secure a license to use the contributor's copyrighted work.

However, I'm not saying that everything licensed under earlier licenses is cut off from being used in works licensed under 1.2 unless it gets licensed under 1.2 by the original creator first. I'm saying that there is simply no way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use the original creator's work under 1.2. The language simply isn't there. It doesn't define or even mention the term "Open Game Content", so it can't be used to copy, modify, or distribute material that a contributor designated as Open Game Content. It doesn't define or even mention the term "Product Identity", so it can't be used to protect material that a contributor designated as Product Identity. There is no section of license 1.2 where a prospective licensee can credit contributors or acknowledge their copyright on the original material.

And, most importantly, there is no language that is anything like Section 4 (Grant and Consideration):

In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

That's where the magic happens. That's where Contributors (defined earlier in the document as "copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content") give the licensee (You) a license to use their copyrighted work as laid out elsewhere in return for agreeing to and abiding by the OGL. There is no section like that in license 1.2.

Not only that, but there can be no section like that because the term contributor is not defined.

Not only that, but OGL 1.0a is a license between one or more contributors and a licensee who wants to use the copyrighted material they have designated as OGC, while license 1.2 is a license between WotC and a licensee who wants to use SRD 5.1 (and possibly other licenses in the future). WotC does not own the copyright on a contributor's material. Therefore, they cannot give a prospective licensee any kind of license to use it. While I don't trust WotC, I don't foresee them claiming copyright on 23 years of OGC material, so I see no way in which a prospective licensee could legally secure a license to a contributor's copyrighted work under license 1.2.

With that out of the way, Section 5(b) of license 1.2 explicitly states that a licensee may give permission for others to use their own material under any terms they want, but that the licensee must follow certain instructions when it comes to Licensed Work (defined earlier as any combination of "Our Licensed Content" with "our" meaning WotC's) and "Your Content" (with "your" meaning the licensee's).

This is the part where I make clear that I am not a lawyer, and that I also have no idea what WotC is doing here.

In theory, it seems like a licensee could use OGL 1.0a alongside license 1.2 to secure a license to use a contributor's work. However, in the Draft for Discussion document, WotC asserts that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. That would seem to indicate that a licensee can't secure such a license under 1.0a, because 1.0a requires an authorized license. However, WotC claims that "no longer an authorized license" means "that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date)." They specify "SRD content", which suggests that they believe there is some other category of content that can be published under OGL 1.0a, but there's no definition of what SRD content actually is. And, as I said before, OGL 1.0a requires an authorized license, and if WotC can legally deauthorize it, then it can't be used to secure a license to a contributor's copyrighted material published under it. (And that's if WotC can deauthorize any version of the license, which may not be the case.)

I think that WotC might be trying to reach for some way to allow for contributors to be able to offer licenses to use their own copyrighted work under OGL 1.0a with their "you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content" language, but that is by no means clear.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I did not read the whole tread and somebody might have wondered about this before.

How does this work ?
"contain both Our Licensed Content and Your Content; " they describe their Licensed Content as being the SRD. So you must include something from the SRD ? Pathfinder 2 did not use anything from the SRD so does not fall under this license ?

 

[Matt Thomason]

I think that WotC might be trying to reach for some way to allow for contributors to be able to offer licenses to use their own copyrighted work under OGL 1.0a with their "you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content" language, but that is by no means clear.

Yes. Until I see a clear example from WotC explaining how they would expect this to look in a covered work including both SRD content from them and OGC that a 3PP released under 1.0a, I'm very uncomfortable trying to do it solely from stepping through their legal language and trying to avoid the potholes they've left everywhere. Especially because at this point I do not trust them not to have intentionally laid traps in there.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

If we're all using Project Black Flag, that takes away all their control, therefore it is better for them to accept that many changes in 1.2 will have to go or they'll have no control over us whatsoever, and will begin to see ORC-licensed works claiming compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons under fair use of that Trademark at an uncomfortable rate.

This might lead to the second era of litigious frenzy in the RPG industry. Nobody wants that. And it would leave a post-apocalyptic wasteland of what once was a thriving ecosystem of common works available for all to use, from the amateur homebrewer to the Paizo's and the Roll20's of the world.

Even if we all jump ship to another system with a "safer" license, we're leaving hell of a lot behind if we budge on OGL 1.0. And WotC built their damn success on that community effort. That is the cause of their brand equity. So I don't think it's fair at all that they're now trying to illegally nuke it all in pursuit of further profits, profits they think they'll get by illegally seizing the fruits of our collective work.

 

[rknop]

I did not read the whole tread and somebody might have wondered about this before.

How does this work ?
"contain both Our Licensed Content and Your Content; " they describe their Licensed Content as being the SRD. So you must include something from the SRD ? Pathfinder 2 did not use anything from the SRD so does not fall under this license ?

Yeah... which is why calling this an "Open Game License" is totally deceptive.

This is 100% a D&D system license. They're calling it the "O"GL either because they don't understand what open gaming really is, or, more likely, because they are disingenuously calling it that so that they have a pretense under which they can de-authorize the real OGL.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

they are disingenuously calling it that so that they have a pretense under which they can de-authorize the real OGL.

Bingo.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Even if we all jump ship to another system with a "safer" license, we're leaving hell of a lot behind if we budge on OGL 1.0. And WotC built their damn success on that community effort. That is the cause of their brand equity. So I don't think it's fair at all that they're now trying to illegally nuke it all in pursuit of further profits, profits they think they'll get by illegally seizing the fruits of our collective work.

I don't think it's fair either. I'm just saying currently I would absolutely not agree to 1.2 without more major changes, and would rather use ORC than that if it comes down to it and walk away from WotC altogether rather than hand them more control on a plate.

My first preference is still that 1.0a remains usable as-is, and use it for some stuff and ORC for others, with an eye to getting more ORC things done so I'm not as dependent on things involving the OGL and WotC - I do not want all my eggs in one basket after recent events, and it was likely a big mistake of mine to do that in the first place, so I'm correcting my mistake here.

My second is that 1.2 loses all the clauses giving WotC unilateral control over various things, adding restrictions to software not present in 1.0a, and makes it clear how to use 1.0a-licensed 3PP content with it, and I use that in one hand and ORC in the other.

My third, if they make it completely impossible for me to do what I want to do under any license, is to go 100% ORC (with anything thats solely my own work, for contracted work I'm still pretty much tied to 1.0a/1.2 for the forseeable future in some way no matter what happens.)

 

[Haplo781]

Bingo.

They should call it what it is: GSL 2.