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'.

 

[Parmandur]

View attachment 273142

I mean, if theybpit out a 4E, 3.x or even earlier edition SRD(s)...thst would be amazing. Put THaAC0 in Creative Commons...?

Other than a mechanism for resolving disputes over the morality clause, frankly this is better than the OG OGL.

 

[kjdavies]

So, nobody's finding this part concerning?

Severability. If any part of this license is held to be unenforceable or invalid for any reason, Wizards may declare the entire license void, either as between it and the party that obtained the ruling or in its entirety. Unless Wizards elects to do so, the balance of this license will be enforced as if that part which is unenforceable or invalid did not exist.​

​

So basically, if they decide to find a crack in their own legalese at any point in the future, WotC can declare the entire license void and replace it with any version they please - or no version at all.

That was a major "uh..." moment on my first reading.

 

[gban007]

For me it is looking a lot better, but I would really want 2 more changes:

• Prior SRDs also added to the license (3.5 etc)​
• The clause about harassment / obscene etc content should go to some third party, or at least have some ability to appeal to a third party rather than solely under WOTC's control​

 

[Matt Thomason]

This still looks blatantly illegal to me.

I don't think it's illegal, they just can't do what they say they're doing re: de-authorizing 1.0a.

Example: I can say I hereby revoke any rights for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace. I'm not breaking any law by saying that, it's simply that my words carry absolutely no weight.

Now, if I actually physically prevent someone entering, I'm in trouble. If I try to sue them, I'm going to lose (no sensible Judge would even hear the case, they'd simply throw it out. WotC may get as far as the courtroom in their own battle, of course, but are still unlikely to win on deauthorization)

 

[rknop]

Example: I can say I hereby revoke any rights for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace.

Oh man. I was looking forward to that trip. Oh, well, so much for that.

 

[Matt Thomason]

For me it is looking a lot better, but I would really want 2 more changes:

• Prior SRDs also added to the license (3.5 etc)​
• The clause about harassment / obscene etc content should go to some third party, or at least have some ability to appeal to a third party rather than solely under WOTC's control​

For me, also add:

• Removal of any different treatment for VTTs/other software
• A clear explanation of how to combine their 1.2-licensed content with existing non-WotC 1.0a-licensed content.

 

[Parmandur]

I don't think it's illegal, they just can't do what they say they're doing re: de-authorizing 1.0a.

Example: I can say I hereby revoke any rights for anyone to enter Buckingham Palace. I'm not breaking any law by saying that, it's simply that my words carry absolutely no weight.

Now, if I actually physically prevent someone entering, I'm in trouble. If I try to sue them, I'm going to lose (no sensible Judge would even hear the case, they'd simply throw it out. WotC may get as far as the courtroom in their own battle, of course, but are still unlikely to win on deauthorization)

Having listened to the Opening Srguments podcasts on this topic...it seems that they can deauthorize. Their legal case seems plausible and sound.

 

[kjdavies]

^Poisoned. Pill.^

Wotc will not farm out enforcement of their "Morality Clause" when the whole point of all of this is to give them more control over their IP...

I contend it's not entirely the IP they're trying to control, but the participants in the market.

 

[jerryrice4949]

That’s not how contracts work. It doesn’t matter how much time passes, the terms of the contract are the terms of the contract. No takeseys-backseys.

Well I would wager WoTC does not consider the OGL a contract and most contracts don’t last forever.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Having listened to the Opening Srguments podcasts on this topic...it seems that they can deauthorize. Their legal case seems plausible and sound.

Depends how they define de-authorization.

They can certainly prevent any further licensing under 1.0a by pulling their offer.
They can't de-license already-licensed works.
They probably can't stop third parties using 1.0a between themselves, especially in that 1.0a requires the licensee to make that offer.