What's All This About The OGL Going Away?

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms. I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable...

This last week I've seen videos, tweets, and articles all repeating an unsourced rumour that the OGL (Open Gaming License) will be going away with the advent of OneD&D, and that third party publishers would have no way of legally creating compatible material. I wanted to write an article clarifying some of these terms.

audit-3929140_960_720.jpg

I've seen articles claiming (and I quote) that "players would be unable to legally publish homebrew content" and that WotC may be "outlawing third-party homebrew content". These claims need clarification.

What's the Open Gaming License? It was created by WotC about 20 years ago; it's analagous to various 'open source' licenses. There isn't a '5E OGL' or a '3E OGL' and there won't be a 'OneD&D OGL' -- there's just the OGL (technically there are two versions, but that's by-the-by). The OGL is non-rescindable -- it can't be cancelled or revoked. Any content released as Open Gaming Content (OGC) under that license -- which includes the D&D 3E SRD, the 5E SRD, Pathfinder's SRD, Level Up's SRD, and thousands and thousands of third party books -- remains OGC forever, available for use under the license. Genie, bottle, and all that.

So, the OGL can't 'go away'. It's been here for 20 years and it's here to stay. This was WotC's (and OGL architect Ryan Dancey's) intention when they created it 20 years ago, to ensure that D&D would forever be available no matter what happened to its parent company.


What's an SRD? A System Reference Document (SRD) contains Open Gaming Content (OGC). Anything in the 3E SRD, the 3.5 SRD, or the 5E SRD, etc., is designated forever as OGC (Open Gaming Content). Each of those SRDs contains large quantities of material, including the core rules of the respective games, and encompasses all the core terminology of the ruleset(s).

When people say 'the OGL is going away' what they probably mean to say is that there won't be a new OneD&D System Reference Document.


Does That Matter? OneD&D will be -- allegedly -- fully compatible with 5E. That means it uses all the same terminology. Armor Class, Hit Points, Warlock, Pit Fiend, and so on. All this terminology has been OGC for 20 years, and anybody can use it under the terms of the OGL. The only way it could be difficult for third parties to make compatible material for OneD&D is if OneD&D substantially changed the core terminology of the game, but at that point OneD&D would no longer be compatible with 5E (or, arguably, would even be recognizable as D&D). So the ability to create compatible third party material won't be going away.

However! There is one exception -- if your use of OneD&D material needs you to replicate OneD&D content, as opposed to simply be compatible with it (say you're making an app which has all the spell descriptions in it) and if there is no new SRD, then you won't be able to do that. You can make compatible stuff ("The evil necromancer can cast magic missile" -- the term magic missile has been OGL for two decades) but you wouldn't be able to replicate the full descriptive text of the OneD&D version of the spell. That's a big if -- if there's no new SRD.

So you'd still be able to make compatible adventures and settings and new spells and new monsters and new magic items and new feats and new rules and stuff. All the stuff 3PPs commonly do. You just wouldn't be able to reproduce the core rules content itself. However, I've been publishing material for 3E, 3.5, 4E, 5E, and Pathfinder 1E for 20 years, and the need to reproduce core rules content hasn't often come up for us -- we produce new compatible content. But if you're making an app, or spell cards, or something which needs to reproduce content from the rulebooks, you'd need an SRD to do that.

So yep. If no SRD, compatible = yes, directly reproduce = no (of course, you can indirectly reproduce stuff by rewriting it in your own words).

Branding! Using the OGL you can't use the term "Dungeons & Dragons" (you never could). Most third parties say something like "compatible with the world's most popular roleplaying game" and have some sort of '5E' logo of their own making on the cover. Something similar will no doubt happen with OneD&D -- the third party market will create terminology to indicate compatibility. (Back in the 3E days, WotC provided a logo for this use called the 'd20 System Trademark Logo' but they don't do that any more).

What if WotC didn't 'support' third party material? As discussed, nobody can take the OGL or any existing OGC away. However, WotC does have control over DMs Guild and integration with D&D Beyond or the virtual tabletop app they're making. So while they can't stop folks from making and publishing compatible stuff, they could make it harder to distribute simply by not allowing it on those three platforms. If OneD&D becomes heavily reliant on a specific platform we might find ourselves in the same situation we had in 4E, where it was harder to sell player options simply because they weren't on the official character builder app. It's not that you couldn't publish 4E player options, it's just that many players weren't interested in them if they couldn't use them in the app.

But copyright! Yes, yes, you can't copyright rules, you can't do this, you can't do that. The OGL is not relevant to copyright law -- it is a license, an agreement, a contract. By using it you agree to its terms. Sure WotC might not be able to copyright X, but you can certainly contractually agree not to use X (which is a selection of material designated as 'Product Identity') by using the license. There are arguments on the validity of this from actual real lawyers which I won't get into, but I just wanted to note that this is about a license, not copyright law.

If you don't use the Open Gaming License, of course, it doesn't apply to you. You are only bound by a license you use. So then, sure, knock yourself out with copyright law!

So, bullet point summary:
  • The OGL can't go away, and any existing OGC can't go away
  • If (that's an if) there is no new SRD, you will be able to still make compatible material but not reproduce the OneD&D content
  • Most of the D&D terminology (save a few terms like 'beholder' etc.) has been OGC for 20 years and is freely available for use
  • To render that existing OGC unusable for OneD&D the basic terminology of the entire game would have to be changed, at which point it would no longer be compatible with 5E.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JEB

Legend
I don’t think WoTC has a strong case even if you assume that. The license I (and others) agreed to (1.0) is perpetual, and allows use of anything designated as open content for ANY version of the OGL, including future licenses ( assuming a 1.1 version is a version of the OGL, which it is, cuz of the .1 designation…)

I can’t think of a single case where an owner license usage in perpetuity and later could just revoke it on a whim.
So I just read section 9 again:

9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. 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.

Going with exact words... Wizards (or its agents) could de-authorize 1.0/1.0a. You could no longer use it to publish OGC. But you could sign up for 1.1, and then use it to publish OGC that was available under "any version", meaning 1.0 or 1.0a. However... you'd now be under the terms of 1.1.

That said, there is also OGL FAQ 7:
7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.
Which, again, sounds good, except:
  • This suggests Section 9 only applies to previously published content, not new content going forward.
  • They say "acceptable version" - which again suggests Wizards can simply declare an older version "unacceptable".
From a legal standpoint, this is certainly what I'd stand on to argue that OGL 1.0/1.0a was still in effect despite any deauthorization declarations made by Wizards. I'm just not sure it'd work.

All I can say for sure is, this would be a very interesting court case.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Zardnaar

Legend
I don’t think WoTC has a strong case even if you assume that. The license I (and others) agreed to (1.0) is perpetual, and allows use of anything designated as open content for ANY version of the OGL, including future licenses ( assuming a 1.1 version is a version of the OGL, which it is, cuz of the .1 designation…)

I can’t think of a single case where an owner licensed usage in perpetuity and later could just revoke it on a whim.

You're missing the authorized part.

Not saying I agree with it. But apparently the threat is real.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
All I can say for sure is, this would be a very interesting court case.
Honestly, I think that's what they are betting on: court. I.e., they have the money to throw at attorney fees. I certainly don't. So I can't really battle them, even if legally I was in the right. So I suspect they are trying to bully small time creators with that knowledge looming overhead.

So...

To be honest, I can still create material not using any OGL, and screw Hasbro. Sure, the OGL makes things convenient and easier, but this is not an all or nothing scenario with the OGL. I just won't use it going forward. In some cases, that's better, especially if the content I create I want to keep some rights ownership over (which I can't with the OGL).

But..

this part:

because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

sure seems to infer that we can continue to use the old OGL 1.0 regardless.
 

Alzrius

The EN World kitten
In some cases, that's better, especially if the content I create I want to keep some rights ownership over (which I can't with the OGL).
You'd still keep ownership over it; it's just that WotC would be able to do whatever they want with it, in perpetuity, without paying you anything. :confused:
 

They say "acceptable version" - which again suggests Wizards can simply declare an older version "unacceptable".
IANAL and all that, but that might be a tough case for WotC to make considering they've quite happily deemed prior OGL versions acceptable for 20 years now with no complaints. Anyway, in context I think that the FAQ here refers to changes that the 3pp deems unacceptable, not Wizards.

7. Can't Wizards of the Coast change the License in a way that I wouldn't like?

Yes, it could. However, the License already defines what will happen to content that has been previously distributed using an earlier version, in Section 9. As a result, even if Wizards made a change you disagreed with, you could continue to use an earlier, acceptable version at your option. In other words, there's no reason for Wizards to ever make a change that the community of people using the Open Gaming License would object to, because the community would just ignore the change anyway.

With respect to section 9, with all the talk of 'authorised versions' of the licence, there's no mechanism in the OGL for deauthorisation, and the only grounds for termination is non-compliance on the part of the 3pp. This, plus the 'perpetual' clause, would seem to make it very hard to yank the existing OGL from under the feet of 3pp, but of course that relies on any such hypothetical 3pp being able to fight WotC in court on the matter. And none of THAT has any bearing on what restrictions WotC might tack onto the OGL they publish 5.5 under.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
You'd still keep ownership over it; it's just that WotC would be able to do whatever they want with it, in perpetuity, without paying you anything. :confused:
Sorry for the confusion. What I meant was that by using the OGL, your content you identify is OGL, and can by used by others who also use the OGL license.

8. Identification: If you distribute Open Game Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Game Content.

I.e., my understanding is that any open content material you create and identify as such is thus available as open gaming content to other folks to use. If you just skip the OGL altogether, you don't have to worry about that.
 

JEB

Legend
But..

this part:

sure seems to infer that we can continue to use the old OGL 1.0 regardless.
That certainly seemed to be the intent, but Wizards has already suggested a change in POV from the days when that FAQ was made (their recent suggestion that the OGL doesn't cover software, which the FAQ explicitly supported). Which is why we have to consider an "exact words" argument from Wizards' side.

I'd still use the hell out of that FAQ if I was the lawyer for any 3PP arguing that OGL 1.0/1.0a is still in effect, though.
 

JEB

Legend
With respect to section 9, with all the talk of 'authorised versions' of the licence, there's no mechanism in the OGL for deauthorisation, and the only grounds for termination is non-compliance on the part of the 3pp. This, plus the 'perpetual' clause, would seem to make it very hard to yank the existing OGL from under the feet of 3pp, but of course that relies on any such hypothetical 3pp being able to fight WotC in court on the matter.
Yeah, this is why it would be a really interesting case. The OGL and the FAQ don't cover a process for deauthorization, but it does include the concept that versions of the OGL can be authorized/approved, which implies they can also not be authorized/approved. I would guess Wizards could argue they can deauthorize because they own the license and it doesn't say they can't, but 3PPs could argue that without an explicit mechanism you can't deauthorize at all. I have no idea which argument would prevail.

Mind, OGL 1.1 could have language built into it that explicitly deauthorizes prior versions of the license, making the question moot if you sign up for 1.1. The open question would be for those that don't.
 

Sacrosanct

Legend
My prediction:

Old OGL will still be there, but open game content will only be 3e and 5e stuff. All talk of "backwards compatibility" will end, because then WotC can say 6e is completely different, and thus isn't subject to the OGL 1.0 license*. If you agree to the 1.1 (6e) OGL, then you have to abide by those terms for that edition only (which IMO are pretty restrictive terms--basically they can end it at any time and then sell your stuff for as long as they want, and you can only sell it on certain WoTC platforms).

* a page out of Gary Gygax's books re: AD&D vs D&D. (How did that work out by the way? ;) )
 

Zardnaar

Legend
My prediction:

Old OGL will still be there, but open game content will only be 3e and 5e stuff. All talk of "backwards compatibility" will end, because then WotC can say 6e is completely different, and thus isn't subject to the OGL 1.0 license*. If you agree to the 1.1 (6e) OGL, then you have to abide by those terms for that edition only (which IMO are pretty restrictive terms--basically they can end it at any time and then sell your stuff for as long as they want, and you can only sell it on certain WoTC platforms).

* a page out of Gary Gygax's books re: AD&D vs D&D. (How did that work out by the way? ;) )

Well the easiest way to pull that off is make 6E OGL 1.1 only.

Can they retroactively invalidate the old OGL that's the ?.

WotC is under no obligation themselves to make any future edition OGL.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Remove ads

Top