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]

So the new CC rules for making 5e isn't enough? What can't be back engineered? Pathfinder already has it's own class race and level up rules, I believe that Level up does as well.

Is Wizards going to be trusted to not be a dick over Fighter, Druid, Magic Missile?

 

[Jer]

I understand why that is a "I stand for principle" but that isn't a mechanic issue... with what they are offering with the CC can't ORC take all of the backbone fo D&D?

The text of the SRDs was incorporated into products.

That text was covered under copyright law and owned by Wizards.

That text was licensed to be used as is by Wizards to anyone complying with the OGL 1.0a.

That text has been incorporated verbatim into many projects over the years.

Those companies that acted in good faith that Wizards was allowing them to use that text verbatim for perpetuity and incorporated the text verbatim into products now need to go back and clean room their games to rewrite the text in such a way that it no longer violates Wizards copyright.

This is disruptive and expensive and also a result solely of Wizards deceptive business practice of representing a copyright license as being forever when it was not. Or from them deceptively trying to terminate a license that is actually irrevocable.

Either way this is bad, and completely solvable by just leaving the OGL alone and creating a new trademark license for their compatibility logos that has the extra restrictions they want on it to allow you to mark yourself as "Wizards approved" instead of "someone who might be doing things wizards dislikes".

 

[eyeheartawk]

again, the systems I know of have there own class/race/feats/skills/spells so what do they need?
I see lots of things that some want. I understand that having magic missile is cool, but if you have the ability to make your own 1st level spells how does this effect things?

Well, I imagine, if you have a product line under OGL 1.0a right now, and you want to continue supporting it with new material past whatever arbitrary date Wizard's puts in place for this to take effect, alot. You'd have to redo tons of stuff and republish it since even using some of the same words you used in the earlier work you couldn't use, right?

Do you see how none of this is necessary? People published under the protection and rules of the OGL, built businesses around those assurances and now they are having to scramble to publish under a new license, or drastically change their existing works to continue putting out new stuff etc etc.

Like, why should we? Why are you so dead-set that it's okay from them to do this to us?

 

[Justice and Rule]

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

I mean, I care about those changes, but those changes are utterly meaningless given WOTC's ability to completely terminate the new OGL with their morality clause.

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

Not really, though? Once they've destroyed the original OGL, you can't get it back. They've gotten what they want. You've basically lost.

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, this absolutely does not do that. It has been pointed out multiple times that this does not assure that at all. They can just unilaterally cancel anyone's ability to make content through this, and by

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

I never called you a liar. I've simply pointed out that you are very eager for a compromise, or whatever is being sold as such. You eagerly defended the morality clause, too, which is basically the superlaser of their OGL Death Star. I think that you are just really quick to forgive on this, which is why I don't really see your threat as a real one.

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

Yes, I know how compromise work. I get assurances on what I want, they get assurances on what they want. They may not get everything I want, nor will I.

This deal is not a compromise. It's a surrender. They can unilaterally and without remedy cancel all these contracts if they so desire while also deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We get nothing, they get everything.

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

No, they don't need you because they already have you.

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

No, they're just able to convince people with fake concessions that they don't need to be held to to get what they want.

no it's at OUR spending.

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

What did they give in? They get what they want and they can completely renege on their side of things because they have a morality clause that allows them to nuke the entire thing from orbit with no arbitration.

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.

They absolutely are okay with screwing people. I've posted examples already of them attempting to do that, and breaking good-faith contracts to do so. The evidence that they will simply go back on their word far outweighs the idea that they'll just give up, and what they've put in the OGL gives them an out on this.

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.

Sure, you can say you got what you wanted. But the reality of the contract doesn't reflect that.

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"

Actually, I think I understand cause and effect here better than you. They thought they could get away with it in the open, so they went as hard as they did with 1.1. With 1.2, they've had to make a cursory attempt to hide their intent.

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

I mean, they'll have gotten what they wanted in killing the OGL 1.0a. I just have no faith that the group that says "Oh, if they do again we'll totally stop them" when their version of a compromise is already giving WOTC to do this again without any sort of consequences or guardrails.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

I can no longer use, say, a hypothetical Fey-addled Owlbear from some old, OOP book from a bankrupt 3.0 publisher in a PF1 module without exposing myself to a silly lawsuit. Even if I put that PF1 module out for free on the Internet.

Hasbro's trying to claw their owlbears back, but they've already donated them to the commons in perpetuity. And that's not okay.

It's a massive, nuclear dump over everything I actually care about in the D&D-adjacant space in the TTRPG world. It's theft and sabotage.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Is Wizards going to be trusted to not be a dick over Fighter, Druid, Magic Missile?

Magic Missle they may have a claim to (but not force dart, or magic barrage or what ever) but fighter and druid is a SUPER hard sell to say they ownn those words... I mean Mcfarlen DID try to own the word spawn and words 'Hell Spawn' so who knows

 

[Staffan]

If I gave my permission for you to use my work under a 1.0a ogl and you want to move to 1.2 but I don't what does that mean?

didn’t you give permission to use it under any authorized version?

Section 9 of OGL 1.0 says "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

The proposed 1.2 says nothing about how to use Open Game Content. It only discusses Licensed Content, Unlicensed Content, and Your Content.

First, "giving the core mechanics" is the height of arrogance. Game mechanics already are well understood not to be able to be protected as intellectual property, and therefore WotC is giving us nothing we don't already have.

It does remove the need to rewrite/rephrase them, which isn't nothing. It might not be much, but it's not nothing.

No. I mean something like, "This license permits you to combine Your Content with licensed content created by others and distribute the resulting works as authorized by this license."

Paizo, for example, has created some genuinely new OGC under OGL 1.0a. Stuff that isn't present anywhere in 3.5e, but which Paizo themselves considers to be open content. They have explicitly declared it as such, allowing others to make use of that content. By my reading of the proposed OGL 1.2, that would be forbidden--OGC is only ever shared between "You" (individual creator) and WotC. Never between two distinct creators, each of whom is distinct from WotC. Any OGC created by Paizo could be used by only and exactly two entities: Paizo (and their representatives) and WotC, even though Paizo wants to share.

That's my problem.

The proposed OGL 1.2 does allow for you to license others to use your contributions however you please. However, it does not contain any easily used framework for doing so, which means it generally won't happen in practice.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Well, I imagine, if you have a product line under OGL 1.0a right now, and you want to continue supporting it with new material past whatever arbitrary date Wizard's puts in place for this to take effect, alot. You'd have to redo tons of stuff and republish it since even using some of the same words you used in the earlier work you couldn't use, right?

that is my question, what is that? like so far Magic Missle is the only exxample I have seen to rework.

Like, why should we? Why are you so dead-set that it's okay from them to do this to us?

I'm not very dead set on anything... maybe that is why I am asking

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

that is uncalled for

Some people have nice conversations with brick walls.
You saying it is un called for might be seen as hateful against either people that like talking to brick walls or brick walls themselves.
As the OGL draft says WOTC has the sole right to decide what conduct or content is hateful.

So we all should be careful

 

[eyeheartawk]

that is my question, what is that? like so far Magic Missle is the only exxample I have seen to rework.

Come on man, you think in all of the 75% of the 5.1 SRD that isn't Creative Commons the only thing in there that people are going to have to change if they don't want to use the new OGL is magic missile? The only proper noun?

Seriously? You can't possibly be serious.

I'm not very dead set on anything... maybe that is why I am asking

Uh-huh.