WotC Backs Down: Original OGL To Be Left Untouched; Whole 5E Rules Released as Creative Commons

Hundreds of game publishers sigh in relief as, after extensive pressure exerted by the entire open gaming community, WotC has agreed to leave the original Open Gaming License untouched and put the whole of the 5E rules into Creative Commons.

So, what's happened?

• The Open Gaming Licence v1.0a which most of the D&D third party industry relies on, will be left untouched for now.
• The whole of the D&D 5E SRD (ie the rules of the game less the fluff text) has been released under a Creative Commons license.

OGL 1.0a & Creative Commons

Over the past few weeks you, the community, have made your voices heard. And we’ve listened. OGL 1.0a will remain untouched AND the entire SRD 5.1...

www.dndbeyond.com

WotC has a history of 'disappearing' inconvenient FAQs and stuff, such as those where they themselves state that the OGL is irrevocable, so I'll copy this here for posterity.

When you give us playtest feedback, we take it seriously.

Already more than 15,000 of you have filled out the survey. Here's what you said:

• 88% do not want to publish TTRPG content under OGL 1.2.
• 90% would have to change some aspect of their business to accommodate OGL 1.2.
• 89% are dissatisfied with deauthorizing OGL 1.0a.
• 86% are dissatisfied with the draft VTT policy.
• 62% are satisfied with including Systems Reference Document (SRD) content in Creative Commons, and the majority of those who were dissatisfied asked for more SRD content in Creative Commons.

These live survey results are clear. You want OGL 1.0a. You want irrevocability. You like Creative Commons.
The feedback is in such high volume and its direction is so plain that we're acting now.

1. We are leaving OGL 1.0a in place, as is. Untouched.
2. We are also making the entire SRD 5.1 available under a Creative Commons license.
3. You choose which you prefer to use.

This Creative Commons license makes the content freely available for any use. We don't control that license and cannot alter or revoke it. It's open and irrevocable in a way that doesn't require you to take our word for it. And its openness means there's no need for a VTT policy. Placing the SRD under a Creative Commons license is a one-way door. There's no going back.

Our goal here is to deliver on what you wanted.

So, what about the goals that drove us when we started this process?

We wanted to protect the D&D play experience into the future. We still want to do that with your help. We're grateful that this community is passionate and active because we'll need your help protecting the game's inclusive and welcoming nature.

We wanted to limit the OGL to TTRPGs. With this new approach, we are setting that aside and counting on your choices to define the future of play.
Here's a PDF of SRD 5.1 with the Creative Commons license. By simply publishing it, we place it under an irrevocable Creative Commons license. We'll get it hosted in a more convenient place next week. It was important that we take this step now, so there's no question.

• SRD 5.1-CC

We'll be closing the OGL 1.2 survey now.

We'll keep talking with you about how we can better support our players and creators. Thanks as always for continuing to share your thoughts.

Kyle Brink
Executive Producer, Dungeons & Dragons

What does this mean?

The original OGL sounds safe for now, but WotC has not admitted that they cannot revoke it. That's less of an issue now the 5E System Reference Document is now released to Creative Commons (although those using the 3E SRD or any third party SRDs still have issues as WotC still hasn't revoked the incorrect claim that they can revoke access to those at-will).

At this point, if WotC wants anybody to use whatever their new OGL v1.x turns out to be, there needs to be one heck of a carrot. What that might be remains to be seen.

Pathfinder publlsher Paizo has also commented on the latest developments.

We welcome today’s news from Wizards of the Coast regarding their intention not to de-authorize OGL 1.0a. We still believe there is a powerful need for an irrevocable, perpetual independent system-neutral open license that will serve the tabletop community via nonprofit stewardship. Work on the ORC license will continue, with an expected first draft to release for comment to participating publishers in February.

Over 1,500 Publishers Support Paizo's Upcoming Open RPG Creator's License

Paizo has revealed some of the 1,500+ tabletop RPG publishers who have expressed an interest in their new Open RPG Creator's License (ORC), describing the group as the 'ORC Alliance'. The license itself is still being worked on, so these 1,500 publishers have not actually seen it or signed...

www.enworld.org

 

[wingsandsword]

Well well. I feel like this whole thing was so unfortunate because it has left a new scar among the community that might never heal.

But I’m glad at least for this. My cynicism expects a new license for the new edition changes but it will probably not be OGL-related.

Yeah, I'd put money at this point that future editions will be released under a very restrictive non-open license, if any license at all.

However, leaving the OGL 1.0a intact (and thus everything released under it available) and 5.1 SRD into Creative Commons is a pretty big victory.

 

[Scribe]

Now the question is whether all those who said their trust in WotC was irrevocably broken and that they were forever done with WotC-owned D&D actually follow through and never play it again?

Depends. My line in the sand was met. At this point I will not openly, relentlessly roast them for what and who they are. I know, and they know, and deep down, so does everyone else who was witness to this slow moving train wreck. Thats enough.

Thats about as much as I'm going to give up at this date.

 

[Burt Baccara]

Question for lawyers:

What are the differences between that specific CC licence and the 1.0a OGL as it was?

Second question, would there ever be a reason to combine the two? E.g. OGL 1.0a for 3.5 SRD and CC for 5.1 SRD, and would this free up Mind Flayer for say an OSR product?

 

[overgeeked]

Publishers rejoice!

If I may...

 

[Ydars]

So now they make One D&D completely incompatible with 5e and release no 3rd party license for creators for it. So they get their walled garden but by a different means. Cos this is all just about 5e and previous editions. They will move us all onto One D&D and then the cycle starts all over again.....

 

[Bravesteel25]

I can honestly say that I am utterly surprised by this news. I tend to agree with several other posters in that this probably means 6E or whatever will be completely different in terms of licensing and compatibility. WotC has let the metaphorical cat out of the bag now, I think they've lost the initiative for now.

 

[Jer]

I presume the next step will be for 1D&D to have it's own separate SRD 6.0, and that will be gated by a genuine and clear GSL 2.0 which will enforce the conditions WotC wanted (albeit probably not the royalty or ownership ones), but only as regards that SRD.

Nobody will be hugely upset, if so, I suspect. So long as WotC is open and transparent about it.

Or 1D&D doesn't have its own SRD at all because they aren't changing most of the core game anyway. Which is why they originally hold back the classes, monsters and spells from being put under the CC-BY license because those are the things that they know are the most important to their changes, not the core rules.

It's not like the 5.1 SRD includes feats (only 1 example feat) or Backgrounds (only 1 example Background) or all of the subclasses (only 1 example subclass for each class). They were very careful with the 5.1 SRD to release a bare bones SRD and not give away the farm the way they felt like they had with the 3.x SRD.

If they keep the basic rules the same, which I suspect they will, they could very easily not put out an SRD for any of their changes and allow DM's Guild creators to use the new material under their own special license which is already not OGL. That gets them their gated garden without the nuclear bomb that they tried to set off.

(This is also why I want them to commit to the 3.x SRD under the CC-BY as well. Because there are things in the 3.x SRD that didn't make it into the 5.1 SRD and shennanigans could still happen in the future if some new executive gets a clever idea and thinks revoking the 3.x SRD needs to happen for some reason).

 

[Reynard]

Please don't gun frolic. Bullets have to come down somewhere, man.

Tell me you're American without telling me you're American...

 

[Ydars]

Second question, would there ever be a reason to combine the two? E.g. OGL 1.0a for 3.5 SRD and CC for 5.1 SRD, and would this free up Mind Flayer for say an OSR product?

You cannot combine them and it won't help you with that even if you did. Mind Flayers and setting material (FR, Greyhawlk etc) are not in either the OGL or SRD 5.1, so there is no way to do that for One D&D or even 5e once they close the DM's Guild (and I assume they will).

 

[Ondath]

My birthday coming up at the end of the month. All in all, this is just the best birthday present I could have asked for.

Happy birthday in advance!

Seeing Colville's depressing tweets and the way deauthorisation seemed like a red line for WotC, I was rather hopeless. Now I am unbelievably pleased. Releasing all of the SRD 5.1 is HUGE, and I'm hoping that not crossing the OGL's irrevocability will be something that's kept in WotC's institutional memory.

In an ideal world, I would wish they also released an OGL v1.0b that made the license explicitly irrevocable (in its common sense meaning), but I don't think they'll mess with v1.0a for the foreseeable future. So I don't know if the third party ecosystem for D&D and OGL-based open gaming will survive this, but at least we lost nothing, and gained an even bigger thing in the form of SRD 5.1 in CC. Hopefully everyone can stop worrying about obscure legal debates and actually focus on the fun part of the hobby: Making and playing cool games.