OGL 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.


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'.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

log in or register to remove this ad

Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.
A separate brand compatibility agreement would be a great boon! The original OGL was designed to be used in conjunction with such a license, the D20 System Trademark License. Paizo has a similar thing in it's Pathfinder compatible licenses.

And these separate licenses should absolutely contain "morality" and "non-embarassment" clauses that maintain the integrity of the licensor's brand. In exchange for submitting to this scrutiny, the licensee gets a nice "official"-looking badge. No nazis allowed with a badge (but maybe no lesbian BDSM anarchists either, depending on the brand in question).

But this isn't the purpose of the OGL. That's a copyright license, and it was made for some very specific reasons that render it incompatible with having that kind of restriction attached. Specifically, it's this kind of copyright license:

 
Last edited:

A lot of their classes AND monsters are from the SRD in some fashion. The Level Up Monstrous Menagerie is simply full of such creatures, for example.
wow, okay I didn't realize that much of the monsters were just copied from teh SRD I thought they made a new concept of them... I figured at most somee names needed changing I didn't realize it was so much
 

The continued protections of OGL 1.0a. This is something you seem to have trouble understanding.
yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...
 

Micah Sweet

Legend
wow, okay I didn't realize that much of the monsters were just copied from teh SRD I thought they made a new concept of them... I figured at most somee names needed changing I didn't realize it was so much
They mostly the same kind of monsters, with the same roles and similar (but not identical) text, just with a bunch of new and awesome bells and whistles. A hobgoblin is still a hobgoblin, and a hippogriff is still a hippogriff.
 


Micah Sweet

Legend
yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...
It is not copy-pasted, it is rewritten in a distinct way that leaves the concept very similar to the original.
 

yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

It's not the same. That has less stuff and is more limited than what they currently have. It's basically giving up very little because most of what is being given up wouldn't stand up to a copyright claim.


IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...

Actually, it would have been more on WotC to defend their copyrights years ago than anything else. But again, you seem to be more interested in absolving Wizards than actually looking at what they are doing. This is a good example: putting the blame on people who have been allowed to use such things for years, having the rug pulled from underneath them, and then basically accusing them of laziness by saying they just "copy-pasted them".

At this point, it seems less like you don't understand and more that you are determined not to understand why this is bad for people.
 

A separate brand compatibility agreement would be a great boon! The original OGL was designed to be used in conjunction with such a license, the D20 System Trademark License. Paizo has a similar thing in it's Pathfinder compatible licenses.

And these should absolutely contain "morality" and "non-embarassment" clauses that maintain the integrity of the licensor's brand. In exchange for submitting to this scrutiny, the licensee gets a nice "official"-looking badge. No nazis allowed with a badge (but maybe no lesbian BDSM anarchists either, depending on the brand in question).

But this isn't the purpose of the OGL. That's a copyright license, and it was made for some very specific reasons that render it incompatible with having that kind of restriction attached. Specifically, it's this kind of copyright license:

My point is the refute the arguments used hiding behind the need for the morality clause for the greater good of gaming to the point that 1.0a has to die.
 



doesn't that mean they can keep them... unless the name (like owlbear) comes from wotc/tsr... its not like Goblin, Orc, and Oger are D&D alone
For some reason, they're specifically going for the owlbear and the spell magic missile, as mentioned in the blog post. I guess these figure heavily in the upcoming film? I won't pay to watch that by the way.
 
Last edited:

It's not the same. That has less stuff and is more limited than what they currently have. It's basically giving up very little because most of what is being given up wouldn't stand up to a copyright claim.
the not the same keeps coming up... I get it's not exactly the same. as for those limits I am still figuring them out especially when you turn around with
Actually, it would have been more on WotC to defend their copyrights years ago than anything else.
so then it doesn't matter... what is it, does WotC NOT have a hold of Magic missle and owl bear or is wotc WITHHOLDING magic missle and owl bear?

But again, you seem to be more interested in absolving Wizards than actually looking at what they are doing.
I have no intrest in absolving anyone... so you need to approach this a little less adversarial
WotC is not anyone (let alone my) friend, and WotC is not interested in do 'what is right' or 'what is in the best intrest of us' they are interested in money and IP/Brand power.

The sooner you stop with the "You'r with us or against us" and trying to imagine any business is not out to make money, the better you will understand this.

I don't CARE if WotC is the best company or the Worst company (although from what I have seen they are lower end of mid) I care about figuring out what it is people are most mad about and what it is WotC is willing or able to do.
This is a good example: putting the blame on people who have been allowed to use such things for years,
I'm sorry but who do you think I am blameing with any of this?

I blame pathfinder for splitting my group up when half went to that and half went to 4e... but other then that I don't think I have EVER blamed a 3pp for anything (and even this one is more an emotional then intellectual blaming)
re read what you quoted... I just found out large swaths of the 2 other systems are copy/pasted from the SRD... this is not blame, but it is new information. I knew PF only a little and only froom PC side and everything seemed to be changed (In fact the 3 characters I made for pathfinder do NOT have a 3e or 5e equivalent for class)
having the rug pulled from underneath them, and then basically accusing them of laziness by saying they just "copy-pasted them".
YOU!!! just called them lazy, I did no such thing.
Would you prefer "Retyped word for word" I don't know what the choice of words (I thought copy/paste was short hand for this everywhere else).

YOU WANT TO LAY BLAME, i just am trying to find out why you are so mad...
At this point, it seems less like you don't understand and more that you are determined not to understand why this is bad for people.
And again this is teh "I can read your mind and you don't disagree because two adults that both look at things can disagree sometimes, but instead because you are secretly evil" argument that is nonsense.
Attacking me changes nothing. Telling everyone I am determined not to understand something that i have multi times learned new data and shifted opioion on seems to be just attacking the poster instead of the topic.
 

For some reason, they're specifically going for the owlbear and the spell magic missile, as mentioned in the blog post. I guess these figure heavily in the upcoming film? I won't pay that watch that by the way.
Okay... so lets assume that those two things, and lets say 100 more spell/monster names are what they are really after (I don't know if it is but lets just say).

How much harm is it to the 3pps and us as a community for those names to be locked down?
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
How much harm is it to the 3pps and us as a community for those names to be locked down?
If that were the extent of the change, not much.

But you have to remember they would be doing that by de-authorizing the old OGL 1.0a which, presumably, means that alot of abandoned and OOP content that is being used by others as open game content right now, this very minute, would never be able to be used again. It leaves a wasteland of broken strings of dependent sub-licensing that has huge ramifications as people have been building on each other's open game content for 23 years.
 

If that were the extent of the change, not much.
Okay, so in theory there is some level of thing that wotc could take and not cause much damage... now to just find the happy middle ground to most wotc profit to least us damage and propose it...
But you have to remember they would be doing that by de-authorizing the old OGL 1.0a which, presumably, means that alot of abandoned and OOP content that is being used by others as open game content right now,
I'm still not seeing that.

Lets take my fav retroclone that never went anywhere, it is OGL (and I still never got my kickstarter book)

it is for all purpose out of print and the company is gone and no one is ever working on it again :cry:
if you took something that the made and was OC back then... who would sue you for useing it?
New Haven games? nope.
WotC? on what grounds it was released to open content but it was never WotC content.



Now in THEORY that New Haven Games COULD sue you... but its not likely.
It leaves a wasteland of broken strings of dependent sub-licensing that has huge ramifications as people have been building on each other's open game content for 23 years.
okay show me this broken string. Show me something that was released into open content (preferable something that was also worked on by someone else after) and now if this goes through you would be sued or even C&Ded if you used it under ORC on the new blackflag.
 

Okay, so in theory there is some level of thing that wotc could take and not cause much damage... now to just find the happy middle ground to most wotc profit to least us damage and propose it...

I'm still not seeing that.

Lets take my fav retroclone that never went anywhere, it is OGL (and I still never got my kickstarter book)

it is for all purpose out of print and the company is gone and no one is ever working on it again :cry:
if you took something that the made and was OC back then... who would sue you for useing it?
New Haven games? nope.
WotC? on what grounds it was released to open content but it was never WotC content.



Now in THEORY that New Haven Games COULD sue you... but its not likely.

okay show me this broken string. Show me something that was released into open content (preferable something that was also worked on by someone else after) and now if this goes through you would be sued or even C&Ded if you used it under ORC on the new blackflag.
So your argument is that you can get away with essentially stealing the IP of anyone who doesn't have the money, capacity or awareness to sue you? I can sort of see your point. But I don't think this sounds like a great business plan either. :)
 

mamba

Hero
I give up, I cannot get the new OGL into a shape that is both acceptable and sufficiently airtight enough for me to expect that WotC will have a hard time violating it. That is the problem with having zero trust, you cannot do business that way.

So if I cannot have that, then I have no reason to compromise. Irrevocable 1.0a it is.
 

eyeheartawk

#1 Enworld Jerk™
Now in THEORY that New Haven Games COULD sue you... but its not likely.
Sure, but you know, the whole point of the OGL is to protect you from that possibility in the first place.
okay show me this broken string. Show me something that was released into open content (preferable something that was also worked on by someone else after) and now if this goes through you would be sued or even C&Ded if you used it under ORC on the new blackflag.
I don't know how I could, because it doesn't exist yet.

But if you look in a book that uses some else's open game content they spell that out in the back, and then, let's say that person's work was based on somebody else's open game content they iterated from some one else but that never gets updated under ORC or OGL 1.2 (which right now, doesn't seem to even have a clear provision for open game content from anybody but WOTC anyway-another problem) now you're in a legally grey area.

In some cases you wouldn't even know that you're exposed possibly.

The whole point of the OGL is to provide legal clarity that nobody sues anybody and that we can iterate on each other's stuff. This not only ruins that, but as it stands right now, open game content as we know it isn't even included in the proposed version.

I don't understand how you don't understand why that's a big deal. Multiple, multiple people have explained this to you over multiple threads and you keep saying "it's not a big deal, tho", like what?
 

Visit Our Sponsor

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top