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'.

 

[Jer]

What’s with clause 52, Hasbro has the right of Prima Nocta on anyone who purchased One D&D?

That's actually also buried in the End User License Agreement for D&D Beyond, so if you made an account there you've probably already signed it away. I think it's just a pro-forma thing that their lawyers put in all of their agreements.

Read your EULAs folks!

 

[GMforPowergamers]

What’s with clause 52, Hasbro has the right of Prima Nocta on anyone who purchased One D&D?

that is not a joke... That is sexual assault not a punchline

 

[The Scythian]

using a different version of the OGL is one of those terms, isn’t it?

Do in your interpretation, this cuts off everything licensed under 1.0a from being used in works licensed under 1.2 unless it gets licensed under 1.2 by the original creator first. Correct?

In section 9, WotC asserts that it may publish new versions of the license, and then gives permission for licensees to use any authorized version of the license. Agreeing to and abiding by the OGL is still necessary for the licensee to secure a license to use the contributor's copyrighted work.

However, I'm not saying that everything licensed under earlier licenses is cut off from being used in works licensed under 1.2 unless it gets licensed under 1.2 by the original creator first. I'm saying that there is simply no way for a prospective licensee to secure a license to use the original creator's work under 1.2. The language simply isn't there. It doesn't define or even mention the term "Open Game Content", so it can't be used to copy, modify, or distribute material that a contributor designated as Open Game Content. It doesn't define or even mention the term "Product Identity", so it can't be used to protect material that a contributor designated as Product Identity. There is no section of license 1.2 where a prospective licensee can credit contributors or acknowledge their copyright on the original material.

And, most importantly, there is no language that is anything like Section 4 (Grant and Consideration):

In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a perpetual, worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Game Content.

That's where the magic happens. That's where Contributors (defined earlier in the document as "copyright and/or trademark owners who have contributed Open Game Content") give the licensee (You) a license to use their copyrighted work as laid out elsewhere in return for agreeing to and abiding by the OGL. There is no section like that in license 1.2.

Not only that, but there can be no section like that because the term contributor is not defined.

Not only that, but OGL 1.0a is a license between one or more contributors and a licensee who wants to use the copyrighted material they have designated as OGC, while license 1.2 is a license between WotC and a licensee who wants to use SRD 5.1 (and possibly other licenses in the future). WotC does not own the copyright on a contributor's material. Therefore, they cannot give a prospective licensee any kind of license to use it. While I don't trust WotC, I don't foresee them claiming copyright on 23 years of OGC material, so I see no way in which a prospective licensee could legally secure a license to a contributor's copyrighted work under license 1.2.

With that out of the way, Section 5(b) of license 1.2 explicitly states that a licensee may give permission for others to use their own material under any terms they want, but that the licensee must follow certain instructions when it comes to Licensed Work (defined earlier as any combination of "Our Licensed Content" with "our" meaning WotC's) and "Your Content" (with "your" meaning the licensee's).

This is the part where I make clear that I am not a lawyer, and that I also have no idea what WotC is doing here.

In theory, it seems like a licensee could use OGL 1.0a alongside license 1.2 to secure a license to use a contributor's work. However, in the Draft for Discussion document, WotC asserts that OGL 1.0a is no longer an authorized license. That would seem to indicate that a licensee can't secure such a license under 1.0a, because 1.0a requires an authorized license. However, WotC claims that "no longer an authorized license" means "that you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content after (effective date)." They specify "SRD content", which suggests that they believe there is some other category of content that can be published under OGL 1.0a, but there's no definition of what SRD content actually is. And, as I said before, OGL 1.0a requires an authorized license, and if WotC can legally deauthorize it, then it can't be used to secure a license to a contributor's copyrighted material published under it. (And that's if WotC can deauthorize any version of the license, which may not be the case.)

I think that WotC might be trying to reach for some way to allow for contributors to be able to offer licenses to use their own copyrighted work under OGL 1.0a with their "you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content" language, but that is by no means clear.

 

[Edwin Suijkerbuijk]

I did not read the whole tread and somebody might have wondered about this before.

How does this work ?
"contain both Our Licensed Content and Your Content; " they describe their Licensed Content as being the SRD. So you must include something from the SRD ? Pathfinder 2 did not use anything from the SRD so does not fall under this license ?

 

[Matt Thomason]

I think that WotC might be trying to reach for some way to allow for contributors to be able to offer licenses to use their own copyrighted work under OGL 1.0a with their "you may not use that version of the OGL, or any prior version, to publish SRD content" language, but that is by no means clear.

Yes. Until I see a clear example from WotC explaining how they would expect this to look in a covered work including both SRD content from them and OGC that a 3PP released under 1.0a, I'm very uncomfortable trying to do it solely from stepping through their legal language and trying to avoid the potholes they've left everywhere. Especially because at this point I do not trust them not to have intentionally laid traps in there.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

If we're all using Project Black Flag, that takes away all their control, therefore it is better for them to accept that many changes in 1.2 will have to go or they'll have no control over us whatsoever, and will begin to see ORC-licensed works claiming compatibility with Dungeons and Dragons under fair use of that Trademark at an uncomfortable rate.

This might lead to the second era of litigious frenzy in the RPG industry. Nobody wants that. And it would leave a post-apocalyptic wasteland of what once was a thriving ecosystem of common works available for all to use, from the amateur homebrewer to the Paizo's and the Roll20's of the world.

Even if we all jump ship to another system with a "safer" license, we're leaving hell of a lot behind if we budge on OGL 1.0. And WotC built their damn success on that community effort. That is the cause of their brand equity. So I don't think it's fair at all that they're now trying to illegally nuke it all in pursuit of further profits, profits they think they'll get by illegally seizing the fruits of our collective work.

 

[rknop]

I did not read the whole tread and somebody might have wondered about this before.

How does this work ?
"contain both Our Licensed Content and Your Content; " they describe their Licensed Content as being the SRD. So you must include something from the SRD ? Pathfinder 2 did not use anything from the SRD so does not fall under this license ?

Yeah... which is why calling this an "Open Game License" is totally deceptive.

This is 100% a D&D system license. They're calling it the "O"GL either because they don't understand what open gaming really is, or, more likely, because they are disingenuously calling it that so that they have a pretense under which they can de-authorize the real OGL.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

they are disingenuously calling it that so that they have a pretense under which they can de-authorize the real OGL.

Bingo.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Even if we all jump ship to another system with a "safer" license, we're leaving hell of a lot behind if we budge on OGL 1.0. And WotC built their damn success on that community effort. That is the cause of their brand equity. So I don't think it's fair at all that they're now trying to illegally nuke it all in pursuit of further profits, profits they think they'll get by illegally seizing the fruits of our collective work.

I don't think it's fair either. I'm just saying currently I would absolutely not agree to 1.2 without more major changes, and would rather use ORC than that if it comes down to it and walk away from WotC altogether rather than hand them more control on a plate.

My first preference is still that 1.0a remains usable as-is, and use it for some stuff and ORC for others, with an eye to getting more ORC things done so I'm not as dependent on things involving the OGL and WotC - I do not want all my eggs in one basket after recent events, and it was likely a big mistake of mine to do that in the first place, so I'm correcting my mistake here.

My second is that 1.2 loses all the clauses giving WotC unilateral control over various things, adding restrictions to software not present in 1.0a, and makes it clear how to use 1.0a-licensed 3PP content with it, and I use that in one hand and ORC in the other.

My third, if they make it completely impossible for me to do what I want to do under any license, is to go 100% ORC (with anything thats solely my own work, for contracted work I'm still pretty much tied to 1.0a/1.2 for the forseeable future in some way no matter what happens.)

 

[Haplo781]

Bingo.

They should call it what it is: GSL 2.