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'.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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?

The continued protections of OGL 1.0a. This is something you seem to have trouble understanding.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

Adding the the branding with the trademark ampersand does mean that the case for a morality clause is stronger with this license.

But it is not needed for 1.0a as the use of WoTC brands and trademarks is already forbidden.

The only reason they cite is the need to deauthorize the old license is that morality clause they want to add. If WoTC wants to promote these so called core values, then they can use the official badge program as the carrot.

All they need is a new license that allows the sticker with the trademark that marks the product as “official blessed” and in return you agree to the morality clause and WoTC waives the restrictions in 1.0a that says you cannot use the branding. But to get that you need to sign off on the morality clause.

That would be a powerful market force as stores can sell those books easier and will look twice before stocking books without it.

There might be issues with using other peoples’ work in a product you slap the sticker on, but maybe the OGL license already allows it.

There is no need to deauthorize the OGL to get the benefit they claim is so needed.

A separate brand compatibility agreement would be a great boon! The original OGL was designed to be used in conjunction with such a license, the D20 System Trademark License. Paizo has a similar thing in it's Pathfinder compatible licenses.

And these separate licenses should absolutely contain "morality" and "non-embarassment" clauses that maintain the integrity of the licensor's brand. In exchange for submitting to this scrutiny, the licensee gets a nice "official"-looking badge. No nazis allowed with a badge (but maybe no lesbian BDSM anarchists either, depending on the brand in question).

But this isn't the purpose of the OGL. That's a copyright license, and it was made for some very specific reasons that render it incompatible with having that kind of restriction attached. Specifically, it's this kind of copyright license:

Copyleft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[GMforPowergamers]

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.

wow, okay I didn't realize that much of the monsters were just copied from teh SRD I thought they made a new concept of them... I figured at most somee names needed changing I didn't realize it was so much

 

[GMforPowergamers]

The continued protections of OGL 1.0a. This is something you seem to have trouble understanding.

yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...

 

[Micah Sweet]

wow, okay I didn't realize that much of the monsters were just copied from teh SRD I thought they made a new concept of them... I figured at most somee names needed changing I didn't realize it was so much

They mostly the same kind of monsters, with the same roles and similar (but not identical) text, just with a bunch of new and awesome bells and whistles. A hobgoblin is still a hobgoblin, and a hippogriff is still a hippogriff.

 

[Aspirinsmurf]

yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

It's not just the system, most of which probably isn't protected by any copyright anyway. It's much, much more (hello owlbear!). Besides, WotC can't legally place all the third-party OGL in a CC-license anyway.

 

[Micah Sweet]

yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...

It is not copy-pasted, it is rewritten in a distinct way that leaves the concept very similar to the original.

 

[Justice and Rule]

yes if the new one puts the sytem in creative commons i am not understanding.

It's not the same. That has less stuff and is more limited than what they currently have. It's basically giving up very little because most of what is being given up wouldn't stand up to a copyright claim.

IF (as i just learned) you more or less need a WotC monster manual to run these ggames I am starting to see it. THese companies don't want people to have to buy monsters from wotc but they also don't want to have to redo all there monsters that are copy pasted...

Actually, it would have been more on WotC to defend their copyrights years ago than anything else. But again, you seem to be more interested in absolving Wizards than actually looking at what they are doing. This is a good example: putting the blame on people who have been allowed to use such things for years, having the rug pulled from underneath them, and then basically accusing them of laziness by saying they just "copy-pasted them".

At this point, it seems less like you don't understand and more that you are determined not to understand why this is bad for people.

 

[Myrdin Potter]

A separate brand compatibility agreement would be a great boon! The original OGL was designed to be used in conjunction with such a license, the D20 System Trademark License. Paizo has a similar thing in it's Pathfinder compatible licenses.

And these should absolutely contain "morality" and "non-embarassment" clauses that maintain the integrity of the licensor's brand. In exchange for submitting to this scrutiny, the licensee gets a nice "official"-looking badge. No nazis allowed with a badge (but maybe no lesbian BDSM anarchists either, depending on the brand in question).

But this isn't the purpose of the OGL. That's a copyright license, and it was made for some very specific reasons that render it incompatible with having that kind of restriction attached. Specifically, it's this kind of copyright license:

Copyleft - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

My point is the refute the arguments used hiding behind the need for the morality clause for the greater good of gaming to the point that 1.0a has to die.