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'.

 

[Remathilis]

Hmm, so they are claiming "Magic Missile" is quintessentially D&D?

Glances at Pathfinder

Considering how PF was birthed from D&D, I say this is a fair assessment.

 

[mamba]

“We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.

If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.”

So far not bad, add to that the VTT and no income reporting and no fees part from yesterday, and this is almost acceptable (still have to see the fine print ).
We are almost back at 1.0a and the negotiation has not even started

They could have saved themselves so much trouble…

 

[Sacrosanct]

I suspect de-authorizing is headed for a court near you in the near future.

 

[Nikosandros]

The mechanics are, yes.

And they're officially deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.

So, it seems better than what they were going to do, but I think I still don't like it. I'll have to study it and also wait for some more competent people to chime in.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I suspect de-authorizing is headed for a court near you in the near future.

Uh ... probably not, based on this. Little reward, lots of risk, for someone to not take it.

Mechanics are CC, "product identity" is 1.2 ... seems about right. And if you don't like it (Paizo, et al.) you can do your own thing with ORC.

 

[mhd]

Which CC version? -SA? -NC?

 

[Reynard]

This bit:

• Deauthorizing OGL 1.0a. We know this is a big concern. The Creative Commons license and the open terms of 1.2 are intended to help with that. One key reason why we have to deauthorize: We can't use the protective options in 1.2 if someone can just choose to publish harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content under 1.0a. And again, any content you have already published under OGL 1.0a will still always be licensed under OGL 1.0a.

 

[overgeeked]

We're giving the core D&D mechanics to the community through a Creative Commons license, which means that they are fully in your hands.

Oh, gee. That's awesome. You can't copyright the core mechanics anyway. So...thanks for nothing.

If you want to use quintessentially D&D content from the SRD such as owlbears and magic missile, OGL 1.2 will provide you a perpetual, irrevocable license to do so.

Owlbears and magic missile are not "quintessentially D&D content". Owlbears were copied whole cloth from a Japanese toy. Magic missiles are such a common trope it would be hard to find the actual origin of it without a research grant.

 

[Scribe]

Considering how PF was birthed from D&D, I say this is a fair assessment.

Arcane Missile it is then! lol

 

[Alzrius]

No no no no NO!

Look, WotC, I get that you want to de-authorize the OGL v1.0a really, really badly, but it's a complete and utter non-starter! Framing it as "but we NEED to make this the only version of the OGL available, so we can terminate products that have hateful content" doesn't make that any better; it just makes it sound better. And, as noted many times before, if you're reserving the ability to unilaterally determine what is and is not hateful, as well as the ability to cancel any such product (Section 6(f)), then the license is by definition not open!

The OGL worked just fine for over twenty years without you curating content. Stop using this solution in search of a problem as a fig leaf for exerting oversight over everyone who wants open gaming.