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'.

 

[mamba]

And it’s working. Unfortunately.

I don’t know, I haven’t seen a slowdown here really

 

[I'm A Banana]

A back-license is not standard.

I've seen it in multiple unrelated contracts in my life, for just the reason WotC has said they included it: to protect one party from the other accusing them of stealing an idea they independently developed.

So it looks pretty standard from where I'm sitting. Common enough that I've seen it repeatedly and I am just some dude on the internet.

Because litigation is expensive. Jury trials (which are guaranteed in civil trials in federal court, and common in state civil matters) raise the cost. This applies to both Hasbro and the 3PPs. It doesn't give any substantive rights away- you still get a bench trial, and it's not like being forced into arbitration.

That justifies it. So, again, where is the WILD AND CRAZY that makes this terrible stuff? I would note that you haven't actually made any substantive points about the actual clause of the effect, by the way. Please, feel free- why is the waiver of jury trial just beyond the pale for you?

I haven't said anything is beyond the pale or wild and crazy, have I? I mean, I get that it's easier to characterize me as irrational if I had, but, maybe for the sake of argument, assume that I am a partner in this conversation and not just trying to win an internet argument. Maybe take it down a notch or two.

I don't think "it saves everyone money" is a sufficient reason for including it. Especially since if both parties wanted to avoid a jury trial in the future, they could still agree to not do that. It doesn't HAVE to be in the OGL itself for it to be a thing that reasonable parties still agree to do.

So I'm back at: what justifies its inclusion here?

 

[Dreamscape]

are you (and those publishers) ready to walk away if we can't get a better deal?

It seems almost all, perhaps actually all, 3PPs have already walked away. I have not seen anyone willing to accept that WotC have the right to deauthorise 1.0a, nor to agree with the proposed 1.1. or 2.0. So far all the positive takes on WotC's propaganda machine seem to be coming from non-publishers.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I've seen it in multiple unrelated contracts in my life, for just the reason WotC has said they included it: to protect one party from the other accusing them of stealing an idea they independently developed.

blockbuster used to have in (I think only for management but not sure)
My buddy was weirded out having to sign something saying if they made something like his art or work it was not something he could sue over... we all joked they were coming for our 2 1/2 year vampire campaign.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I don't think "it saves everyone money" is a sufficient reason for including it. Especially since if both parties wanted to avoid a jury trial in the future, they could still agree to not do that. It doesn't HAVE to be in the OGL itself for it to be a thing that reasonable parties still agree to do.

So I'm back at: what justifies its inclusion here?

What justified the governing law? What justifies a merger clause?

What justifies any term of a contract? I told you what justifies it- saving money. That is enough. Arguably, one might say that bench trials are also better in matters involving contracts and IP as well.

Again, you haven't provided a single reason why it shouldn't be there. Just ... nothings. It is beyond frustrating when you are provided actual reasons for the inclusion of language and you're like, "So what if it saves money and that's why it's there."

If you want to have a conversation, maybe contribute something. Otherwise, perhaps there is a reason people don't talk to bananas.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

It seems almost all, perhaps actually all, 3PPs have already walked away. I have not seen anyone willing to accept that WotC have the right to deauthorise 1.0a, nor to make use of the proposed 1.1. or 2.0. So far all the positive takes on WotC's propaganda machine seem to be coming from non-publishers.

so if they all walked away and are useing a new licence who are we fighting for?

My understanding up until now has been we were fighting for Green ROnin, Enpub, and Piazo... if they have all already walked away what is left to fight for?

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

It seems almost all, perhaps actually all, 3PPs have already walked away. I have not seen anyone willing to accept that WotC have the right to deauthorise 1.0a, nor to make use of the proposed 1.1. or 2.0. So far all the positive takes on WotC's propaganda machine seem to be coming from non-publishers.

Yeah, the trust is broken. This is more about saving what has already been built, and our collective rights in that body of work. I don't think anyone really wants to do any new business with WotC going forward, no matter the terms.

 

[Dreamscape]

so if they all walked away and are useing a new licence who are we fighting for?

This is more about saving what has already been built, and our collective rights in that body of work. I don't think anyone really wants to do any new business with WotC going forward, no matter the terms.

That. The utter public humiliation of Hasbro and WotC sounds like a pretty good goal, too.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

so if they all walked away and are useing a new licence who are we fighting for?

My understanding up until now has been we were fighting for Green ROnin, Enpub, and Piazo... if they have all already walked away what is left to fight for?

There is 20+ years of accumulated OGC that we all have the right to use under a perpetual, royalty-free license. That's huge. Sadly, most of it depends on WotC's contributions to that body of work, and it would require the licensing regime to stay as is. We have nothing to gain by negotiating a "better deal", and this isn't a negotiation anyway. It's more like robbery.

 

[Micah Sweet]

okay correct me if I am wrong (and I am honestly asking here, this is not some weird argument in the form of a question)
If Pathfinder and Level up (as I understand them) have classes of there own and Monsters and Spells of there own, what else is needed?

A lot of their classes AND monsters are from the SRD in some fashion. The Level Up Monstrous Menagerie is simply full of such creatures, for example.