Editing Open Game License (section)

=== Proposed OGL1.2 draft ===
Edwin Evans-Thirlwell, for ''[[The Washington Post]],'' wrote that "pushback from fans, who criticized WotC’s response as far from an apology and a dismissal of their legitimate concerns, led WotC to backpedal further. A second bulletin Wednesday [on January 18] included more details about the path forward, along with a mea culpa from [Kyle] Brink, the executive producer, on behalf of his team".<ref name=":32" /> Evans-Thirlwell highlighted the release of the proposed OGL 1.2 which will have open comment available for two weeks, however, "some say the damage is already done. [...] Whether you view the original OGL as a mystic talisman or smoke-and-mirrors, WotC appears to have committed an irreversible act of self-sabotage in trying to replace it — squandering the prestige accumulated over 20 years in a matter of weeks".<ref name=":32" /> Lin Codega, for ''Io9'', wrote that "the commitment to create an irrevocable license under the Creative Commons foundation seems like a good step towards making that happen, and it would not have occurred if ''Dungeons & Dragons'' creators, influencers, fans, and third party publishers had universally come together to reject the proposed OGL 1.1".<ref name=":31" /> They also highlighted that Wizards continues to have "a firm stance on bigoted and hateful content—something that people praised in the leaked draft".<ref name=":31" /> The proposed OGL1.2 would ban "harmful, discriminatory, or illegal content" which Codega views as a good idea, however, Codega commented "in the wake of ''[[Spelljammer: Adventures in Space|Spelljammer]]''<nowiki/>'s inclusion and public treatment of the [[Spelljammer: Adventures in Space#Hadozee|Hadozee]], it remains to be seen if ''D&D'' is even capable of moderating this kind of content in a way that will be respectful, inclusive, and progressive".<ref name=":31" />

Both Codega and Christian Hoffer, for ''ComicBook.com'', highlighted that the proposed OGL1.2 would de-authorize OGL1.0a.<ref name=":31" /><ref name=":30" /> Hoffer commented that de-authorization is "one major sticking point" as it is "seen as a hard line for many creators and third party publishers".<ref name=":30" /> Hoffer wrote that Brink framed de-authorization as necessary to enforce the "'No Hateful or Harmful Content' clause in the new OGL".<ref name=":30" /> Kyle Orland, for ''[[Ars Technica]]'', stated that "aside from the OGL v1.0a deauthorization, the new draft language scales back many of the most controversial portions of the original leaked update [...]. The new draft language also explicitly notes that the new license is 'perpetual, non-exclusive, and irrevocable,' with only a few technical sections being eligible for modification in the future".<ref>{{Cite web |last=Orland |first=Kyle |date=January 20, 2023 |title=D&D maker still wants to revoke earlier versions of "open" gaming license |url=https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/dd-maker-still-wants-to-revoke-earlier-versions-of-open-gaming-license/ |access-date=January 21, 2023 |website=[[Ars Technica]] |language=en-us |archive-date=January 21, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230121005202/https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2023/01/dd-maker-still-wants-to-revoke-earlier-versions-of-open-gaming-license/ |url-status=live }}</ref>