Official OGL Discussion Thread

[Segev]

The things that the very big companies - Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. - would want to capitalize on are the IP, if it's the big merchandizing and movie successes that serve to monetize D&D "sufficiently." None of those are made available via the SRD, therefore none are made available via any version of the OGL.

Literally the only reason to revoke 1.0(a) is to prevent another Pathfinder, or to generally shut down third party publishers.

The claimed reason is a flat-out lie they're hoping will let them paint anybody who continues to oppose it as a "bad person" for opposing it, hoping they can shut up opposition to it. But they don't care about that, because there's no need to care about it. Some piddly hate-monger making a hate-spewing work would not make anything but a passing headline that WotC is as capable of disavowing with the existing OGL as they would be with the ability to revoke licensing. REvoking the license achieves nothing useful, PR-wise, that disavowing it wouldn't. And if it were actually popular enough to self-sustain, WotC would be honestly more angry they couldn't tap that for royalties than they are over the hate-spewing. The extreme vagueness of the definition of what constitutes "hateful" is also telling. "We've decided that you calling your highly-popular fuzzy ball PC race 'Fuzites' is a hate speech dog whistle. You must cease publication of your entire work as your license is revoked. The fact that one of your writers said something unflattering about WotC has nothing to do with this, honest."


The only way pushback should stop is if all "deauthorization" language is removed, and there's at least some acknowledgement that they can't actually do that, because you can't revoke a perpetual license, and "deauthorization" is an attempt to do just that.

[Brookshw]

Apologies for double-posting, but I assumed this was important - the new OGL draft 1.2 is live.

https://www.dndbeyond.com/posts/1432...e-ogl-playtest



In short, it's everything I expected.

Thanks for sharing, interesting and decent choice for a CC license (I'm particularly surprised at Sec. 2(a)(4), especially contrasted against Sec. 1(b) of the OGL). Re: Sec. 1(c)(ii), aren't people commissioning or otherwise licensing art to use in their products, not sure if that's intentional or an oversight. Sec. 3....er, wot? I guess... I laughed at 9(b), 9(e), (g) interesting...

[Psyren]

A cynical theory I've heard is the original statement was bad on purpose so that when a better new OGL arrives everyone is relieved and looks over the fact upon signing they agree to no longer follow OGL 1.0a which is the real thing WOTC wants.

Of course it's what they want. Leaving it intact would not fulfill either of their "core goals."

I think you are drastically overestimating the costs involved. Especially when this would be a one-time cost, after which the OGL becomes less the "speedbump" it currently is and more like a sign saying "keep off the grass".

Remember that two of the key figures at Paizo wrote the damn thing, they know pretty well where the lines are off the top.

Then I look forward to the spate of developers who will make functionally identical games without it. But WotC doesn't have to make things any easier for them. The whole point business-wise is that these other corporations should at least be considering the need to come to WotC for a custom license, not dismissing that avenue ab initio.

Sword Coast Legends came out on Steam, and was released alongside the OotA adventure season I think.
I played it a bit, wasn't bad but also didn't real hit me with a wow factor.
How did it do financially: did it make back its investment?
BG 3 seems to me quite a bit like that product.

Not sure but it's moot in any event - "Sword Coast" is product identity, so that game is definitely a custom license rather than OGL.

1. 1.a + 1.c.i is still a huge question mark area. Want to publish your homebrew on an electronic forum in something other than PDF form? Unclear whether that's covered. Depending on how much falls into the CC zone, that may have larger or smaller effects. But likely, if you have a homebrew class that uses spells from the SRD, your options for publication are (a) printed or pdf or (b)VTT module. This kills <various sites I won't mention by name>, which is good, but also has a broad potential for collateral damage.

Static homebrew files can be published online.

2. 6f is a huge hole, because they reserve the exclusive and unreviewable right to decide what those very vague terms mean.

It kind of has to be? They can't predict what terms will become obscene or hate speech 20 years from now. I'm too smart to give recent examples but they exist.

The things that the very big companies - Microsoft, Amazon, Google, etc. - would want to capitalize on are the IP, if it's the big merchandizing and movie successes that serve to monetize D&D "sufficiently." None of those are made available via the SRD, therefore none are made available via any version of the OGL.

Literally the only reason to revoke 1.0(a) is to prevent another Pathfinder, or to generally shut down third party publishers.

This doesn't stop another Pathfinder or 3PP. Pathfinder got its start selling physical books and pdfs, both of which are allowed here. 3PP did as well.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Only the attribution section can really be weaponized, and doing so would be really really obvious (and unlikely IMO).

Killing 1.0a is a foregone conclusion. They'd never have even begun to publish a new OGL unless they thought they could get away with killing 1.0a. Because it basically allows you to ignore this new license entirely.

One unknown for me--what if you don't use anything from the 5.1 SRD (which is not yet published) and only use material from the 5.0 SRD? The license wasn't clear about that.

Actually the current SRD is 5.1.

My main issue is 9(d) where Wizards has the express right to void the license whenever, for any or no reason.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

Only the attribution section can really be weaponized, and doing so would be really really obvious (and unlikely IMO).

It was also unlikely that wotc would try to kill the ogl 1.0a. If wotc truly needs to update the license at any point, they should do so by making a new SDR with a new license and leaving the old license to be obsoleted naturally. People will move to the newest version if it's optional, as long as they don't make a new unreasonable license

[Segev]

This doesn't stop another Pathfinder or 3PP. Pathfinder got its start selling physical books and pdfs, both of which are allowed here. 3PP did as well.

Right. And Pathfinder - not Google capitalizing on the popularity of a D&D movie - springing up to continue 5.0 when they release "OneD&D" is what they're really out to prevent.

Unfortunately for them, the scrutiny their actions have brought onto the OGL are making it more likely, I think, that more D&D 5e clones will spring up without bothering with a license at all, relying on teh fact that mechanics can't be copyrighted. We'll have to see how they fair in court. Obviously, there will be suits from Hasbro to stop it, and there will be the "drown them in legal bills until they can't seek a ruling anymore" tactic, but if Google really is who they're afraid of.....

[PhoenixPhyre]

Actually the current SRD is 5.1.

My main issue is 9(d) where Wizards has the express right to void the license whenever, for any or no reason.

Ah, I'd not realized that about the current SRD.

As to 9(d), my understanding is that that's a bog-standard clause. It only triggers when a part of it is struck down by the courts and reserves the right to either cut that part out and enforce the rest or drop the whole thing (for a rewrite). That sort of clause is everywhere in most contracts so you don't get to defeat the whole thing by finding a hole in one little bit. Or if you can cut out the heart, you can't wear it as a skin-suit.

[Snowbluff]

Unfortunately for them, the scrutiny their actions have brought onto the OGL are making it more likely, I think, that more D&D 5e clones will spring up without bothering with a license at all, relying on teh fact that mechanics can't be copyrighted. We'll have to see how they fair in court. Obviously, there will be suits from Hasbro to stop it, and there will be the "drown them in legal bills until they can't seek a ruling anymore" tactic, but if Google really is who they're afraid of.....

... The mechanics are CC BY SA though? Everyone doing that would literally have a license. Even if you don't think mechanics can be copyrighted, I think Wizards has ceded that ground.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Ah, I'd not realized that about the current SRD.

As to 9(d), my understanding is that that's a bog-standard clause. It only triggers when a part of it is struck down by the courts and reserves the right to either cut that part out and enforce the rest or drop the whole thing (for a rewrite). That sort of clause is everywhere in most contracts so you don't get to defeat the whole thing by finding a hole in one little bit. Or if you can cut out the heart, you can't wear it as a skin-suit.

So long as it doesn't permit Wizards to declare it unenforceable and void the entire license on their own, that sounds reasonable.

[Psyren]

Right. And Pathfinder - not Google capitalizing on the popularity of a D&D movie - springing up to continue 5.0 when they release "OneD&D" is what they're really out to prevent.

This OGL does apply to SRD 5.1 (the current one). Meaning you can use that to make 5e-specific content as long as you want, under the current ruleset (which includes things like TWF using a bonus action etc. etc.) that are changing in 1DnD.

Unfortunately for them, the scrutiny their actions have brought onto the OGL are making it more likely, I think, that more D&D 5e clones will spring up without bothering with a license at all, relying on teh fact that mechanics can't be copyrighted. We'll have to see how they fair in court. Obviously, there will be suits from Hasbro to stop it, and there will be the "drown them in legal bills until they can't seek a ruling anymore" tactic, but if Google really is who they're afraid of.....

Eh, if something did come up between those two they'd probably just settle. Again though I'm pretty sure that videogames and other interactive experiences are their primary concern, especially given the language in the VTT policy ("at what point does a VTT become a video game?") They're even cracking down on animations and such, which will give their own VTT an edge.

[ToranIronfinder]

Quick reaction as I'm reading the draft--

Better than I expected, but not as good as I hoped.

Good things:
1. Licensing the core mechanics (what that covers is still unknown but judging from the wording won't include spells or most other content such as classes, class features, species, etc) as CC is good. It clarifies that those things aren't protected at all by the OGL and will never be--they're free to use with only minimal restrictions.
2. Very limited ability to change it in the future (only notice and attribution).
3. Lack of any reporting/revenue clauses.
4. Clear "ownership" clauses.
5. A "Creator Product Badge" to indicate "officially OGL products".

Bad things:
1. 1.a + 1.c.i is still a huge question mark area. Want to publish your homebrew on an electronic forum in something other than PDF form? Unclear whether that's covered. Depending on how much falls into the CC zone, that may have larger or smaller effects. But likely, if you have a homebrew class that uses spells from the SRD, your options for publication are (a) printed or pdf or (b)VTT module. This kills <various sites I won't mention by name>, which is good, but also has a broad potential for collateral damage.
2. 6f is a huge hole, because they reserve the exclusive and unreviewable right to decide what those very vague terms mean.

We will see, again the problem with the new one, aside from legal issues, and precisely what they view as "mechanics" since classes seem to be OGL not CC will be "similarity." So many of the Iconic DnD monsters are themselves borrowed from other sources, reskinned and renamed, will they use this to go after anyone who has a spell that puts enemies to sleep, which is in sources.like Morte de Arthur? Owlbears themselves were copied from another source, as I recall, as were mindflayers, displacer beasts and a number of Non-OGL creatures. Magic missles may have a unique name--but nothing else is unique about it. Will they go after any setting that is Tolkienesque, despite the fact that they borrowed from Tolkien?

Second big question is how this applies to new products on sublicense, or the D6 questions I've asked about, before (in review OpenD6 used OGL 1.0a to go open despite having no WOTC content, though I suspect WOTC used some D6 content jmin constructing 3.x). Deauthorizing is a fraught matter, and should be treated as a deal breaker by WOTC's customers. It just creates too many problems and only works if we assume TSR was far more original than it was, or than WOTC is.

If they maintain the you can't sue us language, that also should be a deal breaker as well, whether or not said clause is enforceable or not.

[Ashtagon]

Initial reading of the draft 1.2 OGL reveals it to be worse than toilet paper (that, at least, is already on paper so is immediately available for bottom-cleansing purposes).

They make a point of banning the 1.0a OGL. For me, this is basically a red line unless the new OGL is less restrictive (it isn't). They helpfully note that this ban has a grandfather clause for anything that is already published by a date TBD. That date is guaranteed to annoy a lot of 3PPs unless it is at least a year in the future (unlikely), due to product development cycles.

The "morality clauses" are in there. In essence, WotC reserves for itself and only itself the right to determine if any given product passes or fails a morality standard. This morality standard isn't defined anywhere in this OGL, and I suspect it will end up becoming a moving goalpost (our cultural norms and 'what is offensive' change over time after all). There's nothing other than a post-hoc legal challenge to prevent WotC from arbitrarily declaring any 1.2-licenced product to be "immoral" and then, under other clauses in this "licence", demanding that it immediately be removed from sale and publication.

Even though most 3PPs probably have no intention of breaching such a clause, the power it gives WotC over their company means this OGL should be a non-starter. WotC can arbitrarily ban any product it likes, and the only comeback is a court case, which will be prohibitively expensive for nearly all 3PPs; those that could afford it would be better advised to switch to a genuinely open licence without trap clauses instead.

Oh, except the 3PP can't take legal action, due to the "you can't sue us" clause. So. Yeah.

Finally, despite wotc claiming this 1.2 licence is irrevocable, clause 9d defines a situation in which WotC can unilaterally declare it revoked anyway.

This licence won't affect any hobbyist publishing gaming content for fun (although be aware that WotC can monetise that content by restricting access to it on vtt to paying members). But anyone planning on commercial publishing (including pretty much everyone that the original OGL was aimed at encouraging) would be foolish to use this as written. There's too many trap clauses.

[Psyren]

I think the removal of the (weird) language around product identity is precisely so 3PP stop having to debate/track whether owlbears and mindflayers and displacer beasts (oh my!) are okay to include in their books and VTTs or not. It will simply be - if we include it in the any future SRD or the current one, you can use it, period.

[ToranIronfinder]

Initial reading of the draft 1.2 OGL reveals it to be worse than toilet paper (that, at least, is already on paper so is immediately available for bottom-cleansing purposes).

They make a point of banning the 1.0a OGL. For me, this is basically a red line unless the new OGL is less restrictive (it isn't). They helpfully note that this ban has a grandfather clause for anything that is already published by a date TBD. That date is guaranteed to annoy a lot of 3PPs unless it is at least a year in the future (unlikely), due to product development cycles.

The "morality clauses" are in there. In essence, WotC reserves for itself and only itself the right to determine if any given product passes or fails a morality standard. This morality standard isn't defined anywhere in this OGL, and I suspect it will end up becoming a moving goalpost (our cultural norms and 'what is offensive' change over time after all). There's nothing other than a post-hoc legal challenge to prevent WotC from arbitrarily declaring any 1.2-licenced product to be "immoral" and then, under other clauses in this "licence", demanding that it immediately be removed from sale and publication.

Even though most 3PPs probably have no intention of breaching such a clause, the power it gives WotC over their company means this OGL should be a non-starter. WotC can arbitrarily ban any product it likes, and the only comeback is a court case, which will be prohibitively expensive for nearly all 3PPs; those that could afford it would be better advised to switch to a genuinely open licence without trap clauses instead.

Oh, except the 3PP can't take legal action, due to the "you can't sue us" clause. So. Yeah.

Finally, despite wotc claiming this 1.2 licence is irrevocable, clause 9d defines a situation in which WotC can unilaterally declare it revoked anyway.

This licence won't affect any hobbyist publishing gaming content for fun (although be aware that WotC can monetise that content by restricting access to it on vtt to paying members). But anyone planning on commercial publishing (including pretty much everyone that the original OGL was aimed at encouraging) would be foolish to use this as written. There's too many trap clauses.

Yeah, I would agree, the no sueing clause is a deal breaker, whether or not it is enforceable. As is any deauthorizing of the OGL, they just lost a customer.

[Blackdrop]

Section 3 is also a huge red flag.

"If we steal your work, you need to prove that we knowingly intended to steal your work. If you somehow manage to prove that borderline impossibility, you're only entitled to monetary damages and you can't stop us from continuing to publish the stolen material."

[Psyren]

The "morality clauses" are in there. In essence, WotC reserves for itself and only itself the right to determine if any given product passes or fails a morality standard. This morality standard isn't defined anywhere in this OGL, and I suspect it will end up becoming a moving goalpost (our cultural norms and 'what is offensive' change over time after all). There's nothing other than a post-hoc legal challenge to prevent WotC from arbitrarily declaring any 1.2-licenced product to be "immoral" and then, under other clauses in this "licence", demanding that it immediately be removed from sale and publication.

I mean, you're allowed to not like it but bold is exactly the reason why they can't codify that clause further.

Oh, except the 3PP can't take legal action, due to the "you can't sue us" clause. So. Yeah.

Jury trials are not the only form of legal action.

Finally, despite wotc claiming this 1.2 licence is irrevocable, clause 9d defines a situation in which WotC can unilaterally declare it revoked anyway.

edit: redacted

[Segev]

Again though I'm pretty sure that videogames and other interactive experiences are their primary concern, especially given the language in the VTT policy ("at what point does a VTT become a video game?") They're even cracking down on animations and such, which will give their own VTT an edge.

This is another one they're going to have trouble enforcing. They can't claim copyright over the concept of animations for spells. Nor for "cones of fire" or "spheres of fire" or even "small magical bullets flying through the air."

[NichG]

I never said people didn't.

The context of your back and forth with Atranen, to which I was adding on, was an issue about what WotC 'ought' to do and how people could behave in reaction to that - specifically with you recommending to just publish under the new OGL and Atranen objecting to that idea on the basis of WotC's behavior. So your comment of 'yes, they have the right to do this' was implicitly arguing that because its their right, actions in protest against them exercising that right would be unjustified: they have the right to do this (so you shouldn't object).

So I think its salient to point out that just because someone might have the legal right to do something doesn't mean others are automatically unjustified in objecting to how they utilize that right. Especially when those others are considering how to exercise their own rights in ways that might lead to positive or negative consequences to that first entity, or which might involve risk should that first entity betray subsequent trusts.

[Xervous]

Anyone else notice the VTT section where it calls out "an animation of magic missile" as no bueno?

What isn’t permitted are features that don’t replicate your dining room table storytelling. If you replace your
imagination with an animation of the Magic Missile streaking across the board to strike your target

Just glancing over at Foundry I can think of a dozen, dozen things that could be coded for increased entertainment value that would run afoul of this.

[ToranIronfinder]

I mean, you're allowed to not like it but bold is exactly the reason why they can't codify that clause.

But to even assume it should be at issue requires WOTC to take stances they lack the qualifications to make. Cultural shifts are only meaningful if one holds to a subjectivity ethic, as the culture could simply be wrong, and that is why, as someone who rejects those schemes, I consider better definition essential.

[Brookshw]

So long as it doesn't permit Wizards to declare it unenforceable and void the entire license on their own, that sounds reasonable.

Agreeing with Phoenix, though will add there are many different types of reformation clauses available that are widely used, WotC did settle on a more draconic one, but one which is the end result of what would have happened without a clause at all, and still leaves them the option for reformation.

Really not sure how much we can say about these clauses in detail....

[Psyren]

This is another one they're going to have trouble enforcing. They can't claim copyright over the concept of animations for spells. Nor for "cones of fire" or "spheres of fire" or even "small magical bullets flying through the air."

They're not claiming copyright over anything. They're attempting to say the license doesn't cover video games, and acknowledging that the line between a highly-automated VTT and a video game is fuzzy at best.

The context of your back and forth with Atranen, to which I was adding on, was an issue about what WotC 'ought' to do and how people could behave in reaction to that - specifically with you recommending to just publish under the new OGL and Atranen objecting to that idea on the basis of WotC's behavior. So your comment of 'yes, they have the right to do this' was implicitly arguing that because its their right, actions in protest against them exercising that right would be unjustified: they have the right to do this (so you shouldn't object).

My "publish under 1.2" suggestion was specifically responding to the lament that there wouldn't be a way to make 5e content going forward. We now know that to be false, SRD 5.1 (on which 5e is based) is explicitly covered under OGL 1.2. It had nothing to do with a moral objection or protest to the new OGL, it was a purely logistical suggestion.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Anyone else notice the VTT section where it calls out "an animation of magic missile" as no bueno?



Just glancing over at Foundry I can think of a dozen, dozen things that could be coded for increased entertainment value that would run afoul of this.

Talespire and, to a lesser extent, Roll20 also have some features that would arguably violate this guideline. My guess is that this is how they'd want to push the "graphics" of the VTT they're building over the others, by limiting what access the others have to these graphical flair effects.

It's such an odd inclusion into it, it almost seems like they're trying to mask it as well by including it in the banning of NFT creation which at this stage is almost universally supported. I can't see it accomplishing anything positive for them to include this restriction, so once feedback opens I'll definitely be suggesting its removal.

[Atranen]

The "morality clauses" are in there. In essence, WotC reserves for itself and only itself the right to determine if any given product passes or fails a morality standard. This morality standard isn't defined anywhere in this OGL, and I suspect it will end up becoming a moving goalpost (our cultural norms and 'what is offensive' change over time after all). There's nothing other than a post-hoc legal challenge to prevent WotC from arbitrarily declaring any 1.2-licenced product to be "immoral" and then, under other clauses in this "licence", demanding that it immediately be removed from sale and publication.

Even though most 3PPs probably have no intention of breaching such a clause, the power it gives WotC over their company means this OGL should be a non-starter. WotC can arbitrarily ban any product it likes, and the only comeback is a court case, which will be prohibitively expensive for nearly all 3PPs; those that could afford it would be better advised to switch to a genuinely open licence without trap clauses instead.

Agreed. There can't be a way for 3PP content to be stripped by WoTC without notice, regardless of how high-minded the reasons for doing so are. The only way out of this knot is to note that the morality clause is not compatible with any form of open license. I don't expect WoTC to back down, hence they do not support open gaming.

I mean, you're allowed to not like it but bold is exactly the reason why they can't codify that clause further.

They could drop the clause.

The context of your back and forth with Atranen, to which I was adding on, was an issue about what WotC 'ought' to do and how people could behave in reaction to that - specifically with you recommending to just publish under the new OGL and Atranen objecting to that idea on the basis of WotC's behavior. So your comment of 'yes, they have the right to do this' was implicitly arguing that because its their right, actions in protest against them exercising that right would be unjustified: they have the right to do this (so you shouldn't object).

So I think its salient to point out that just because someone might have the legal right to do something doesn't mean others are automatically unjustified in objecting to how they utilize that right. Especially when those others are considering how to exercise their own rights in ways that might lead to positive or negative consequences to that first entity, or which might involve risk should that first entity betray subsequent trusts.

This was also my reading of your posts, Psyren. As far as I know, people aren't putting forward the argument that Wizards can't do this (and that argument isn't within the scope of this thread). They're upset because they think it is a bad thing to do, regardless of whether they have that right. Responding to that with 'well, they have the right to do so' doesn't address the concern.

My "publish under 1.2" suggestion was specifically responding to the lament that there wouldn't be a way to make 5e content going forward. We now know that to be false, SRD 5.1 (on which 5e is based) is explicitly covered under OGL 1.2. It had nothing to do with a moral objection or protest to the new OGL, it was a purely logistical suggestion.

My, uh, lament, is that there is not a way to publish 5e content without accepting the new license. That is, the new license is going to force people to adopt it or cut them off from the system. I think this is a bad thing to do.

[Rynjin]

They're not claiming copyright over anything. They're attempting to say the license doesn't cover video games, and acknowledging that the line between a highly-automated VTT and a video game is fuzzy at best.

And the natural response to this would be to bean them in the forehead with an eraser and scream "Magic Missile!".

It's an absurd standpoint to have that "replacing imagination" is A.) a thing and B.) is something VTTs do anymore than the aforementioned LARP "animation" does.

[Ashtagon]

I mean, you're allowed to not like it but bold is exactly the reason why they can't codify that clause further.

Well sure. I get that morality is very much in the "I know it when I see it" area. But that's the problem. Two people can easily have different understandings of what is offensive; its even possible for two different WotC executives to disagree on this; it's even possible for WiotC to revise its opinion based on a particularly intense campaign by an external campaign group (anyone remember BADD?). And all that matters is the opinion of whichever manager happens to be at the steering wheel of WotC that day. This vagueness means that a 3PP has no way of knowing ahead of time that their product won't be slapped down by WotC. And there's no process for asking WotC to review their plans to greenlight anything "just in case". There's just "publish and hope WotC won't slap you arbitrarily".

When a genuinely open licence will be available shortly, there's just no incentive to touch this one if you plan on publishing commercially.

Jury trials are not the only form of legal action.

edit: redacted

That's fair. a 3PP can still sue in a non-jury context. But I do note that class actions and all forms of collective action are specifically banned.

[Oramac]

Bad things:
1. 1.a + 1.c.i is still a huge question mark area. Want to publish your homebrew on an electronic forum in something other than PDF form? Unclear whether that's covered. Depending on how much falls into the CC zone, that may have larger or smaller effects. But likely, if you have a homebrew class that uses spells from the SRD, your options for publication are (a) printed or pdf or (b)VTT module. This kills <various sites I won't mention by name>, which is good, but also has a broad potential for collateral damage.

At the very least, they need to clarify if a fillable PDF qualifies as "static" or not. I'm betting not, but we can hope.

2. 6f is a huge hole, because they reserve the exclusive and unreviewable right to decide what those very vague terms mean.

It kind of has to be? They can't predict what terms will become obscene or hate speech 20 years from now. I'm too smart to give recent examples but they exist.

Yes and yes. They can't predict the terms that will be obscene, but they can define "obscene" in the context of the document. This is done in law all the time. I won't go any further to avoid breaking forum rules.

Also, I agree with Phoenix that their right to decide is "unreviewable". This section needs, if not a complete rewrite, then at least a lot more specifics to pass muster.

Actually the current SRD is 5.1.

Yup. For reference, the page numbers listed refer to the SRD thus:

56-104: All the basics. Alignment, Inspiration, Backgrounds, Equipment, Armor, Weapons, Ability Scores, Advantage/Disadvantage, etc.

254-260: Basic Monster Stuff. No stat blocks, but all the info IN a stat block. Hit points, AC, size, types, speed, senses, etc.

358-359: Conditions. Blinded, deafened, paralyzed, etc.

Section 3 is also a huge red flag.

"If we steal your work, you need to prove that we knowingly intended to steal your work. If you somehow manage to prove that borderline impossibility, you're only entitled to monetary damages and you can't stop us from continuing to publish the stolen material."

Yea this one is pretty awful too. Definitely not a fan.

[Idkwhatmyscreen]

I mean, you're allowed to not like it but bold is exactly the reason why they can't codify that clause further.

They have to find a resolution to the conflict if they want people to use the license.

Because as long as they can plug the plug on anything for any reason, the license offers no protection to publishers. No matter how well intended the clause is, if it's abusable by Wotc, it has to be changed.

[Ashtagon]

They have to find a resolution to the conflict if they want people to use the license.

Because as long as they can plug the plug on anything for any reason, the license offers no protection to publishers. No matter how well intended the clause is, if it's abusable by Wotc, it has to be changed.

Exactly. By having that clause in there, this draft offers a 3PP less legal protection than they would have had simply by going by the "you can't copyright game rules" principle.

[ToranIronfinder]

Thanks for sharing, interesting and decent choice for a CC license (I'm particularly surprised at Sec. 2(a)(4), especially contrasted against Sec. 1(b) of the OGL). Re: Sec. 1(c)(ii), aren't people commissioning or otherwise licensing art to use in their products, not sure if that's intentional or an oversight. Sec. 3....er, wot? I guess... I laughed at 9(b), 9(e), (g) interesting...

Am I correct in understanding this only applies to the 5.x SRD and not the 3.x Srd, and if so what happens there as OGL 1.0a is deaithorized?