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]

Everything I've heard about that podcast indicates that they didn't know what they were talking about in regards to legalities or ethics.

They knew about the legalities (the main dude is an IP lawyer), what theyblacked was the gaming culture context, despite some childhood familiarity with the game. Just on the legalities, is where they detail the strength of WotC positions.

If you want to know how a Judge is likely to view any litigation here, it is worth listening to both episodes in full.

 

[kjdavies]

Under the new rules I can only use my stuff and Hasbro's stuff. I can't include someone else's stuff. It's an "Open" gaming license in name only.

And the Hasbro stuff I can include is far smaller than in the past. It's a D&D Gaming License. There's nothing "Open" about it.

Unless you go to the trouble of running them down to get a license, or they go to the trouble of having the foresight to offer one before you get there.

OGL v1.0a makes them at least think about it, and compliance with OGL v1.0a makes it easy for them to say 'yes' (especially when saying 'no' can be harder -- difficult to justify my book of new wizard spells isn't derivative of open content).

 

[Langy]

It's entirely possible they do not. However, the law does, and their OGL contract with us does not have an expiry date.

If I sell you something, that's covered under a contract of sale, represents the vast majority of contracts in existence, and certainly does last forever.

If I sell you a perpetual license for software, that license does not expire, and can only be terminated under the clauses contained within the license itself.

If I give you a perpetual license, I can revoke it at any time, as long as there was no consideration (money or obligations) involved.

And to be clear, the OGL includes consideration (you agree not to exercise certain rights you otherwise would have had).

 

[MrGrenadine]

Given that WoTC has already had a long track record of increased representation in its products, and given that the majority of complaints regarding WoTC on-line come from people that are trying to make the game less inclusive ....


I would very much recommend against this line of argument, simply because it does seem disingenuous at this time.

As does the argument that hate speech is running so rampant in gaming that we need WotC to swoop in and save us all.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

There's consideration under section 7 of the OGL 1.0(a).

 

[mamba]

That is by no means "the same" as what we have now.

I meant content covered under the OGL 1.2 vs 1.0a, not the conditions of the two licenses

 

[Matt Thomason]

So we just initiate protective replication and sublicense between ourselves? I've made a repository here. The owlbear is probably in there somewhere.

The Oglebogle 1.0

docs.google.com

In my laymans, but researched, opinion, sublicensing of the OGL between two parties cannot be revoked by WotC, and their deauthorization of OGL 1.0a only applies to instances where they are the licensor.

Thank you for your contribution - may I also suggest the various Mongoose Pocket Handbooks (the 3.5 SRD split into three books), 5esrd.com, pretty much any third party d20 corebook, and the various iterations of Pathfinder as viable sources of Open Game Content that appear to be unaffected by anything WotC can do.

 

[mamba]

This is why patience sometimes pays out. And of course voicing your opinion.

the latter definitely, the former by itself not so much

 

[MockingBird]

A few updates for those interested

 

[Langy]

They knew about the legalities (the main dude is an IP lawyer), what theyblacked was the gaming culture context, despite some childhood familiarity with the game. Just on the legalities, is where they detail the strength of WotC positions.

If you want to know how a Judge is likely to view any litigation here, it is worth listening to both episodes in full.

They can claim as such as much as they want, but the fact is that their argument that the OGL can be revoked at will and it's good and ethical and righteous to do so is horseshit. The OGL was understood at the time to be non-revokable, and it uses the same language as GPLv2. WOTC has no special right in the OGL to "de-authorize" the original contract, and contracts are interpreted against the author when they're ambiguous.

WOTC can stop offering it, but they can't force third-party people to stop offering it, and the OGL specifically requires each licensee to allow sublicenses. Since third-party people have published the entirety of the SRD, they can't prevent people from sub-licensing from those third-party publications of the SRD.

WOTC can include in a future contract that people who agree to it stop publishing things under the old OGL, but they can't do it unilaterally.

I'm not a lawyer, and going to trial could result in almost any result, but how the law should be interpreted is clear and I find it very unlikely that something like this that would impact billions of dollars of economic activity via the GPLv2 connection would be thrown in the trash.