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'.

 

[Reynard]

Does it even matter?

Of course it matters. People and companies have entire game lines built around OGL 1.0a.

 

[mamba]

I think people need to actually look at what they're talking about putting under the Creative Commons license. It doesn't include Races, Character Classes, Spells, or Monsters. It includes the core game rules, but nothing else. This is enormously less than is actually in the SRD today.

I’ll take a close look when I can. I would not have expected anything less though, that is the CC part, not the part under the new OGL

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Sure. But what if you have all four of those things? What if you have a hundred such things? What if they make up most or all of the class, race, monster, and spell names in your game?

There is a point where the accumulation of non-copyrightable parts crosses the line into a copyrightable whole. Otherwise you could never copyright anything -- you can't copyright a single word, a novel is just a series of single words, ergo a novel cannot be copyrighted.

A fair point. But I am talking about the names of things. The point is that many of the names are not something WotC can own. This is closer to case about copying all the chapter headings of a novel rather than the text.

That said something like using literally the same 12 base classes, while probably permissible, is begging for trouble.

 

[Alzrius]

I agree with that. I don't mind this draft, but it is not an OGL. Call it a GSL and update the morality clause and I'm on board.

I'd be happier if they WotC was that honest about what they were doing, personally.

 

[rknop]

if you aren't using anything in the new SRD, why would you bother to use the new OGL?

Because the OGL 1.0a is in doubt. Because you want to release something as open gaming content.

But, you're right. You should use the ORC, probably (if it comes out as a real open license and doesn't have stuff like morality clauses in it), or straight-up CC. You shouldn't use this license unless you want to use D&D 6e. If you want to use earlier stuff, you should sign on to the group fighting that OGL 1.0a shouldn't be de-authorized.

My biggest problem with all of this is (a) them trying to de-authorize OGL 1.0a, and (b) them calling this D&D system license somehow "open".

 

[Enrahim2]

There are organizations for this type of thing (think CC for defining hate speech). I don't have the link, but it was provided in one of these threads over the past few weeks.

"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."
No definition but wizard's matter. If they want to say including the word "love" in your text somehow is hateful they are fully free to do that, and you cannot contest it on a legal basis at least.

Also notice that this is the one term singled out for allowing for immediate termination. In other words - wizards can terminate whenever they want without any real reason.

 

[mhd]

No, the rules for those things are CC, just not specific examples.

I'd say a few hundred pages are a bit more than just examples, but yeah, you're right, technically.

 

[mamba]

So out of an SRD that's just over four hundred pages, they're granting Creative Commons sixty-six pages or so, which is roughly 15% of the 5.1 SRD.

that is plenty, not sure what you were expecting, but that is already more than we have today

 

[Reynard]

No more access to the 3ed and 3.5 OGL is a big one for a lot of published games.

No legal recourse if they deem you inappropriate.

Also, apparently, any material but other 3rd party publishers, since the only kinds of content available are "Our (WotC's) Licensed Content" and "Your Licensed Content." it is still killing the whole concept of Open Gaming.

 

[Blue]

On Owlbear ....

See, e.g., Deckers Ourtdoor v. Australian Leather Pty. Ltd., 340 F. Supp. 3d 706 (N.D. Ill. 2018) (holding, inter alia, that the use of the term "uggs" as a generic term in Australia did not prevent Plaintiff from absolutely tearing the Defendant a new hole to his posterior).

If someone says, "Owlbear," does a person think, "Woah, that's a portmanteau of an Owl and a Bear," or does a person think, "That's a D&D monster."

Unlike a well known brand name, that's not something particularly spread to those that don't play D&D. So, given that D&D players are a minority of people on the planet, you theoretical person most likely says "Huh, Owl + Bear. Okay, got it."

Also, since it's documented that it predates D&D as a Japanese plastic toy and that's what inspired the monster, that while the toy is not named specifically it the primary descriptor (the other being Bearowl). So it's easy to find prior work.