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'.

 

[kjdavies]

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.

Edit: oops, saw you said specifically open game content released under OGL v1.0a. My answer below is based on my reading of how to use content released by others under v1.2, under v1.2 (i.e. you use my psychomancer class I released under v1.2 in your book released under v1.2). Yeah, it's totally unclear how to combine v1.0a content with v1.2 content.

Looking it over... 5(b) appears to speak to it somewhat.

You may permit the use of your Content on any terms you want. However, if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license, you must include in the Licensed Work the attribution for Our Licensed Content found in the preamble to the applicable SRD, and make clear that Our Licensed Content included in your Licensed Work is made available on the terms of this license.

So, you may offer your content to others, and it seems the intent is that it is in much the same role WotC has (i.e. what used to be called 'Contributor' in v1.0a), though they do a bad job spelling that out. I'm inferring from the bit that says "if any license you offer to your Licensed Work is different from the terms of this license" that you should be able to leverage the terms of this license (v1.2).

I see nothing that suggests, let alone implies, that you are expected to do so... which in turn means to me that if you want to make use of others' content that you can no longer expect that it is there. Under v1.0a I can verify that OGL v1.0a is in the document and Section 15 is populated, and then check the OGC and PI declarations, and I'm done. Here, I might see the new logo on the product and then have to contact the publisher to see if there actually is anything licensed here. In other words, the publisher and I will both have to take extra steps to extend the license and verify the license before I can continue.

And if they don't answer their email, tough luck to me.

IOW, it appears there is a mechanism to allow it, but it's no longer assumed and it's not necessarily nearly as easy on anyone as it used to be.

 

[Matt Thomason]

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.

1.2 does not include a mechanism for that, no.

The way things stand, and what appears to be intended by them, is that all other content you reuse is licensed outside of 1.2, so you'd include 1.2 for the SRD part and then whatever other licenses you need.

So you could have 1.2 for the SRD part. Then if you also included some rules by me under CC-BY-4.0 you'd include that license, and something by Paizo you'd add their ORC license. And so on. There is no combined section 15 equivalent as per 1.0a that allows you to aggregate it all in one license, and appears they do not intend there to be, because their license is solely for their SRDs. It's possible that exists in the other licenses you might be using (I expect ORC will have an S15 equivalent), but obviously that only applies for things that you're using under the same license.

What is unclear is how they expect this to be done if you need to use 1.2 and 1.0a alongside one another, with 1.2 for WotC's bit and 1.0a for a bunch of other 3PP content. Legally, you should be fine just including both licenses, but WotC might make noises about 1.0a being de-authorized (even though they can't deauthorize an OGL agreement between you and third parties). As long as the licensing is under anything except an OGL, it appears to be clear (if messy).

 

[Parmandur]

And now I can't sell Cinderella dresses and toys without them breathing down my neck, even if they were original designs based on my imagination from reading the original fairy tales. See what I mean?

Yes, because they created something that they have copyright to.

 

[mamba]

But id does say that it is irrevocable in the text of the license doesnt it?

was wondering about that too, the license says "irrevocable (meaning that content licensed under this license can never be withdrawn from the license)", so maybe the license itself can be 'withdrawn' as an offer but the content licensed under it cannot be removed from it, IANAL.

I certainly want both, why do we need 50 terms to say 'none of this can be changed in any way'... I guess we would not need lawyers otherwise, that is why

 

[darjr]

I gotta say we are in a surreal world where someone can say D&D business effects Hasbro stock and they may have a valid point.

 

[rcade]

How can the original OGL be "deauthorized" for future use but "perpetual" (and apparently irrevocable) for all prior published material?

Hasbro can't do that because it would be changing the terms of OGL 1.0a, which is explicitly forbidden in Section 4 of that license: "No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License except as described by the License itself. No other terms or conditions may be applied to any Open Game Content distributed using this License."

If I published a game in 2018 under the OGL and you created a new adventure for it, Hasbro can't wave their hands and change the terms of our existing deal to prevent someone else from reusing your open game content from the adventure. We didn't agree to that. It's nowhere in our agreement.

 

[mamba]

It's funny that people are so against WotC now that "defending literal bigots" has now become a hill they will die on.

there is a difference between defending bigots and defending free speech

 

[mamba]

I don’t know that it is cause and effect. A lot of the stock drop started prior to the OGL debacle.

the 5% drop this week did not... in fact I'd say most of it is a direct consequence of this

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

wow... this might get intresting

 

[mamba]

This draft makes it pretty clear that the real issue here is the VTT space. I mean, they attached the VTT policy to it.

there is more, that is just the only one not explicitly excluded from the OGL (e.g. computer games are)