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'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, you're factually wrong on what "open" means lol.

Open to anyone that wants to sign/accept... it's the creative commons for gosh sake

 

[Parmandur]

Binding arbitration based on a set standard would mean that definite bad actors could be shut down, but prevent random power trips (somewhat). At least enough to make publishing feasible.

 

[mamba]

I know, but it's like, why miss that out? And why call it an OGL if it's not an OGL, because this isn't an OGL. An OGL would need a share-alike component.

The 3pp can decide what to share, that is as true in 1.0a as in 1.2. There is not a forced share-alike because this is for people who have an IP to protect.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Remove the "you cannot appeal any of our decisions" clause and add in a clause about how if you appeal and win WOTC will pay all legal fees and if you appeal and fail you will pay all legal fees. Potentially also include a standard arbitration clause. Include an explicit judicial system that this will be done under (probably Washington state, like the rest of the OGL).

Also add in timeline requirements (can't terminate the license 10 years after publication) and remove the author behavior requirement, so that it's all about the published content.

I'm fine with WOTC making the initial determination, but it shouldn't be unappealable so that if WOTC does attempt to use it for nefarious purposes they can be pushed back on.

That doesn't seem unreasonable.

The author conduct one is pretty funny if they did really go by that and had unlimited durations, they should have pulled all the 3E core books a while ago (I won't go into why for the sake of the thread lol).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

The 3pp can decide what to share, that is as true in 1.0a as in 1.2. There is not a forced share-alike because this is for people who have an IP to protect.

And thus it's not an OGL, which is fine, but don't call it an OGL.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You don't get it.

You're doing exactly what you're complaining about.

wait... I didn't get things the way I would have liked them exactly, but I think it's okay and could use some fine tuneing
(like adding useing Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia as the arbiter of disputes)
is somehow saying "if you don't agree 100% with me..." I don't think so

 

[Langy]

can you cite that?

Sure. Sections 6(f) combined with 7(b)(i)

6(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(b) Termination (i) 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).

Because WOTC retains sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful and you agree not to contest any such determination with any legal action and WOTC retains the right to immediately terminate a license if they deem you have engaged in conduct they don't like, WOTC can terminate any license at any time for any reason.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

wait... I didn't get things the way I would have liked them exactly, but I think it's okay and could use some fine tuneing
(like adding useing Southern Poverty Law Center - Wikipedia as the arbiter of disputes)
is somehow saying "if you don't agree 100% with me..." I don't think so

You're treating me not agreeing with you 100% as rejecting everything lol.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

so just to be clear... if someone excepts something you don't like you think they are dumb and walking into a trap... gottcha

i...literally didn't call you dumb. and no, this isn't just "something i don't like" - it's a license that can be revoked for whatever the licensor decides is "harmful content" at any time with no warning or ability to refute. that's not just "something i don't like" - that's a trap.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I think maybe you should reconsider your statement.

I think (and I may be wrong) the theft is by locking it down as if it was there IP... they are stealing it FROM the public domain.

I'm not sure I agree. I think I can put out pnicho or Cinderella stuff if I want... it just has to side more towards brothers grim and less disney.