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'.

 

[CapnZapp]

They're not going to use this to take down

You don't know that.

(I removed the rest of your post, but the point stands )

Even if you were the head of Hasbro, you can't say for sure how future executives will act.

So, no. Whatever we are talking about, please do not make self-assured statements like that. Can we be sure they definitely aren't going to do or not do it, whatever "it" is? No.

Since the trust is gone, we're going to assume that anything that they possibly can do, they will do.

Only by making a license truly open, such as handing over the stewardship of D&D fully (my emphasis) to Creative Commons or the like, can that trust be regained in the short term.

 

[QuentinGeorge]

Let’s be very clear that the reason WotC is going after LaNasa is copyright violation. (And even with that, a conman who hadn’t really produced any saleable product is not destroying the industry or WotC) If LaNasa had a company called LaNasa Games and produced FATAL 2nd edition they wouldn’t care. Don’t buy into the idea that they are heroic crusaders merely wanting to fight the bad guys. It’s a well established con from corporate types in this era, basically a mirror image of LaNasa claiming to be against “wokeness” (he only cares for the coin and notoriety)

 

[The Scythian]

yep, already designated, now I am just using another allowed license for it. I see no issue here, but IANAL, so I will wait for more informed opinions

If you don't see an issue, then you don't know how OGL 1.0a works.

It's not that a contributor designates their copyrighted work as Open Game Content and then other people automatically get to use it. It's that a contributor agrees to give someone who agrees to and abides by the terms of the OGL a license to use their copyrighted work.

Licensees agree to the license by using the OGC offered by the contributor (Section 3). Licensees may not use any parts of the contributor's work designated as Product Identity (Section 7). They must designate their own OGC, if any (Section 8) and PI, if any (if they want protection under Section 7). They must credit the contributors of any OGC they use and acknowledge their copyrights in the Copyright Section of the license (Section 6 sets the requirement, Section 15 is where the credits and copyright acknowledgments must go). If all these conditions are met, the contributor grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Section 4.)

Section 9 of OGL 1.0a says that a contributor agrees to allow their OGC to be copied, modified, or distributed under any authorized version of the license, but that doesn't supersede the other requirements that the contributor agreed to. Even if license 1.2 is authorized, it doesn't offer any mechanism by which prospective licensees might secure a license from a contributor.

The language to do so isn't even there. You don't need to be a lawyer to realize that you can't use a license that doesn't define or even mention Open Game Content to copy, modify, or distribute Open Game Content. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that if a contract doesn't offer a way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use someone else's copyrighted work, they can't use that copyrighted work.

 

[Matt Thomason]

If you don't see an issue, then you don't know how OGL 1.0a works.

It's not that a contributor designates their copyrighted work as Open Game Content and then other people automatically get to use it. It's that a contributor agrees to give someone who agrees to and abides by the terms of the OGL a license to use their copyrighted work.

Licensees agree to the license by using the OGC offered by the contributor (Section 3). Licensees may not use any parts of the contributor's work designated as Product Identity (Section 7). They must designate their own OGC, if any (Section 8) and PI, if any (if they want protection under Section 7). They must credit the contributors of any OGC they use and acknowledge their copyrights in the Copyright Section of the license (Section 6 sets the requirement, Section 15 is where the credits and copyright acknowledgments must go). If all these conditions are met, the contributor grants the licensee "a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content." (Section 4.)

Section 9 of OGL 1.0a says that a contributor agrees to allow their OGC to be copied, modified, or distributed under any authorized version of the license, but that doesn't supersede the other requirements that the contributor agreed to. Even if license 1.2 is authorized, it doesn't offer any mechanism by which prospective licensees might secure a license from a contributor.

The language to do so isn't even there. You don't need to be a lawyer to realize that you can't use a license that doesn't define or even mention Open Game Content to copy, modify, or distribute Open Game Content. You don't need to be a lawyer to understand that if a contract doesn't offer a way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use someone else's copyrighted work, they can't use that copyrighted work.

Exactly this. As I just posted in another thread, you can't consider 1.2 a version of the same thing as 1.0a, the mechanisms just aren't there to support its use as "any acceptable version." It's an OGL in name only.

I'm now convinced this is by design. OGL 1.0a allowed a licensee to sublicense their work, meaning their recipient licensees would enjoy not just the bits of OGC added by their licensor, but everything else up the chain, sublicensed solely through their licensor. So in other words, you'd get bits of the SRD (potentially even the whole SRD) without actually having a license with WotC.
I think this is one of the things they've specifcally wanted rid of. Under 1.2, any new user has to have their own 1.2 agreement between themselves and WotC, due to the lack of the viral sublicensing they cannot get it through other works.
Under 1.0a, I can pick up a Mongoose Pocket Player's Handbook and get the SRD content from that directly, in a license that's solely between me and Mongoose which sublicences WotCs parts to me, and thus totally uncontrollable by WotC.

 

[Maxperson]

what is in 3.5 you need that is not in 5.1?

What does 3.5 have that 5e doesn't?

 

[Horwath]

What does 3.5 have that 5e doesn't?

Separate ASI and feat resource pool.

 

[Maxperson]

Separate ASI and feat resource pool.

I was more asking that rhetorically. 3.5 has tons that 5e doesn't . Half a zillion feats, 7 million races, 23454 classes, many more skills and so on. None of those is in the 5.1 SRD.

 

[Horwath]

I was more asking that rhetorically. 3.5 has tons that 5e doesn't . Half a zillion feats, 7 million races, 23454 classes, many more skills and so on. None of those is in the 5.1 SRD.

I know.
Well, sarcasm does not appear obvious sometimes in written form.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Let’s be very clear that the reason WotC is going after LaNasa is copyright violation. (And even with that, a conman who hadn’t really produced any saleable product is not destroying the industry or WotC) If LaNasa had a company called LaNasa Games and produced FATAL 2nd edition they wouldn’t care. Don’t buy into the idea that they are heroic crusaders merely wanting to fight the bad guys. It’s a well established con from corporate types in this era, basically a mirror image of LaNasa claiming to be against “wokeness” (he only cares for the coin and notoriety)

That case is mostly about trademarks, not copyright.

 

[demoss]

If your line was the OGL based on empathy for the people effected, they haven't reach it until the other SRD mechanics are also added to the CC and possibly the CC used be the Share Alike version.

CC-BY is closer to OGL 1.0a in action.

Nothing in OGL 1.0a required you to set out your original creations as Open Gaming Content. Using CC-BY-SA would require you to