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'.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Just noting that the survey appears to now be open.

OGL 1.2 survey

I am going to wait until monday to put my thoughts in so I can have all my ideas and comments ready.

 

[Jerik]

Here's an example:

The Porphyra RPG is an even starker example.

I have a print copy of the core book. The Section 15 is six pages long. (It's in larger type than the Section 15s in most books, but not that much larger.)

There's no possible way they could track down every single person and company they used Open Game Content from to ask them for a new license.

Without the ability to use the OGL 1.0(a), Porphyra RPG is dead in the water.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Here's an example:

thank you this is EXACTLY what I needed

 

[demoss]

Please look behind the link for context, but TSR's original owlbear was a spitting image ripoff of the oft-mentioned toy, as show in the image. Sure, it's evolved beyond that now, but they want to prohibit others from evolving owlbear as it now stands? (...and a million other things. They can keep the mindflayer, they've used that as a mark, fair enough, and never released it as Open Game Content.)

This is just ridiculous beyond the fact that they already released owlbear as part of 1.0a.

No backsies. Not even if you say "double undo" and cross your thumbs.

Especially not when the thing you're trying to claim wasn't yours in the first place.

What's the inspiration for the owlbear?

The standard explanation for the owlbear in-universe is "A Wizard Did It." Which is fine, as far as it goes, because the trope of "madman tinkering with bizarre mutations" is part of our speculative

rpg.stackexchange.com

 

[LordEntrails]

Section 9 of OGL 1.0 says "You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

Yea, but if they deauthorize previous versions (if they can), then that clause really doesn't matter right?

it doesn't say they can JUST canlce anyone for any reason

But it does make them judge, jury and executioner with no recourse if anyone disagree with their unilateral action. So it would seem to give them the power to act unilaterally for any reason since the could claim something is in violation and no other party is allowed to disagree with them.

it is getting tiring to see people goimg, um, bananas over a waiver of jury trial and sever ability provision because they’ve never read a single contract in their lives.

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.

So I'm not a lawyer and would love to here some educated thoughts on these topics and to address my concerns...

So waiving jury is a little concerning. Why do this? If both sides in a legal action agree to it at a later date, they can always forego a jury trial for arbitration or a bench trial. But forcing it now is... concerning after the actions leading up to this point.
But what is actually more concerning to me is the inability to have class action or joint actions. To my uninformed self, those appear like a means to keep the small guy out of pursuing action. i.e. by myself I could not afford to pursue legal action against them, but if a thousand of us were wronged, we could get together and afford it then. To me, this clause seems to be like a bully trying to protect themselves from being held accountable from picking on the little guy. I get that WotC is trying to protect themselves with this, but it comes across as they are expecting to have legal action brought against them and therefore are trying to stack the deck in their favor. Does not come across as a company engaged in good faith.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

But it does make them judge, jury and executioner with no recourse if anyone disagree with their unilateral action. So it would seem to give them the power to act unilaterally for any reason since the could claim something is in violation and no other party is allowed to disagree with them.

the issue is, that like now, if we don't agree then they risk driving away all there customers. Now is where we JUST proved how important that is.

So waiving jury is a little concerning. Why do this? If both sides in a legal action agree to it at a later date, they can always forego a jury trial for arbitration or a bench trial. But forcing it now is... concerning after the actions leading up to this point.

I have seen similar language in many contracts (even some of my employers use it)

 

[demoss]

I don't understand how you don't understand why that's a big deal. Multiple, multiple people have explained this to you over multiple threads and you keep saying "it's not a big deal, tho", like what?

I'm not convinced they're arguing in good faith at this point: the cycling back to original point to provoke the next round is getting a bit predictable.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

So I'm not a lawyer and would love to here some educated thoughts on these topics and to address my concerns...

So waiving jury is a little concerning. Why do this? If both sides in a legal action agree to it at a later date, they can always forego a jury trial for arbitration or a bench trial. But forcing it now is... concerning after the actions leading up to this point.
But what is actually more concerning to me is the inability to have class action or joint actions. To my uninformed self, those appear like a means to keep the small guy out of pursuing action. i.e. by myself I could not afford to pursue legal action against them, but if a thousand of us were wronged, we could get together and afford it then. To me, this clause seems to be like a bully trying to protect themselves from being held accountable from picking on the little guy. I get that WotC is trying to protect themselves with this, but it comes across as they are expecting to have legal action brought against them and therefore are trying to stack the deck in their favor. Does not come across as a company engaged in good faith.

I've written a series of lawsplainers ... here's the most recent one.

Understanding the In Terrorem Effect of Litigation

So this part of my ongoing and series of law-splainer threads tangentially discussing legal issues and related to nuTSR and the OGL kerfuffle. For prior threads, see the end of the post. Disclaimer: This is about litigation in the United States of America. Not other common law countries (the...

www.enworld.org

(There's a link in it to a prior one about why lawyers write the way they do)

When I have the chance, I'll do a quick one about boilerplate provisions and use the joint action waiver was an example.

 

[Xohar17]

So i filled the survey, they said they would send me a code to an email of my choice, but didnt give me any option to input an email, anyone else having this issue?

 

[Nikosandros]

So i filled the survey, they said they would send me a code to an email of my choice, but didnt give me any option to input an email, anyone else having this issue?

Yes, the same happened to me.