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

 

[SkidAce]

I had a look at the CC SRD they released.
It specifically applies to that version of the 5.1 SRD.
Unlike the OGL it has no language about also applying to later versions of the SRD.
This almost makes me think they intend this to be the last SRD version they release, and that whatever DnD One will become it would not have a SRD.

Thats what I expect, and thats fine.

My disagreement was them pulling the rug out after 20+ years of saying "Do as you will", and they fixed that.

 

[Ashtagon]

The entire 5.1 SRD is under an irrevocable CC license. Literally the only thing more you can ask for is previous editions to be added.

There are subtle but important differences between CC, OGL 1.0a, and a hypothetical "irrevocable text clearly added" 1.0b.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument the entirely of the 5e, d20m, and 3.5e SRDs are released to CC.

Any publisher that wants to publish under CC is limited to their own work plus the SRD, plus anything written by another 3PP under CC. The work from the last two decades is off-limits to them, because that was released under the OGL. This will restrict the flexibility than many publishers had before WotC got drunk on power.

And what about the content released under the 1.0a OGL by publishers and writers that are no longer with us? If the publisher is active, a full rewrite (or a separate SRD document, which amounts to almost the same amount of work) would be necessary to properly label the CC content. A "hibernating" publisher can't do this, due to lack of resources. Even some of the smaller active publishers might find it an onerous task. In contrast, even a "hibernating" publisher could republish a book with the 1.0a OGL changed to a 1.0b OGL and no other changes.

Fixing the OGL -- not just retaining, but actually fixing -- is what will preserve the legacy content for the purpose of remixing it into newer published content. Simply putting all the SRD content into CC doesn't enable this.

In the case of some books, the original writer is no longer with us, and as a one-man band, their "publisher" died with them. That content is forever locked into the 1.0a OGL. But even so, if there is a fixed 1.0b OGL, the mere existence of that 1.0b OGL would make it practically impossible for WotC to ever invalidate the 1.0a (despite the lack of "irrevocable" text), because the revised version would demonstrate continuing intent.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm sorry, no. Now we have to focus all our energies on fighting about Xbox vs. Playstation.

What about Nintendo???

 

[JEB]

There is no way to do #2. You cannot amend the exiting 1.0a by it's own terms. You can release a 1.0b saying it's irrevocable, but then you'd need to re-release everything under that for it to apply.

1) I'm reasonably sure they could include language in a 1.0b that makes it work, and doesn't require everyone to update material. Stuff released under OGL 1.0 didn't have to be specifically re-released under OGL 1.0a, after all.
2) I also imagine there are other ways they could tie their hands. For example, a public statement that Wizards and their successors have no right to de-authorize or otherwise revoke OGL 1.0a. (Something they didn't say today, as @Morrus pointed out.)

So why not just use CC (or ORC) if you have to re-release anyway?

I endorse companies re-releasing OGL material under other open licenses, but considering there are literally thousands of OGL publishers and products spanning 23 years of gaming history, it's much better if we can keep a trustworthy, safely usable version of OGL 1.0 that retains sharing of open content.

 

[Haplo781]

There are subtle but important differences between CC, OGL 1.0a, and a hypothetical "irrevocable text clearly added" 1.0b.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument the entirely of the 5e, d20m, and 3.5e SRDs are released to CC.

Any publisher that wants to publish under CC is limited to their own work plus the SRD, plus anything written by another 3PP under CC. The work from the last two decades is off-limits to them, because that was released under the OGL. This will restrict the flexibility than many publishers had before WotC got drunk on power.

And what about the content released under the 1.0a OGL by publishers and writers that are no longer with us? If the publisher is active, a full rewrite (or a separate SRD document, which amounts to almost the same amount of work) would be necessary to properly label the CC content. A "hibernating" publisher can't do this, due to lack of resources. Even some of the smaller active publishers might find it an onerous task. In contrast, even a "hibernating" publisher could republish a book with the 1.0a OGL changed to a 1.0b OGL and no other changes.

Fixing the OGL -- not just retaining, but actually fixing -- is what will preserve the legacy content for the purpose of remixing it into newer published content. Simply putting all the SRD content into CC doesn't enable this.

WotC putting all their content under CC removes any incentive for them to try deauthorizing the OGL going forward, effectively making it irrevocable for all intents and purposes.

 

[JEB]

WotC putting all their content under CC removes any incentive for them to try deauthorizing the OGL going forward, effectively making it irrevocable for all intents and purposes.

If there's no longer any value for Wizards in revoking OGL 1.0a, then they should have no problem tying their hands and making it truly, officially irrevocable. On the other hand, if they reserve the right to revoke, we'd have to ask ourselves why that would be...

 

[FrogReaver]

If there's no longer any value for Wizards in revoking OGL 1.0a, then they should have no problem tying their hands and making it truly, officially irrevocable. On the other hand, if they reserve the right to revoke, we'd have to ask ourselves why that would be...

They won’t try to revoke again. For the foreseeable future new SRD content will be released under CC for sure. At some point whether they revoke or not will be mostly meaningless.

 

[Ashtagon]

WotC putting all their content under CC removes any incentive for them to try deauthorizing the OGL going forward, effectively making it irrevocable for all intents and purposes.

I see a future ten years from now, in which the 3PP market is split between ORC, CC, and OGL licences, and WotC chooses to somehow try to end the 1.0a licence. Only this time, because only a small fraction of the industry relies on the OGL, they face relatively little pushback.

If there's no longer any value for Wizards in revoking OGL 1.0a, then they should have no problem tying their hands and making it truly, officially irrevocable. On the other hand, if they reserve the right to revoke, we'd have to ask ourselves why that would be...

And this is the real issue. If there's no value for them to revoke, why are they reluctant to formally make it irrevocable?

 

[Haplo781]

I see a future ten years from now, in which the 3PP market is split between ORC, CC, and OGL licences, and WotC chooses to somehow try to end the 1.0a licence. Only this time, because only a small fraction of the industry relies on the OGL, they face relatively little pushback.

And this is the real issue. If there's no value for them to revoke, why are they reluctant to formally make it irrevocable?

And then everyone just shrugs and continues using the same content under CC.

 

[Dausuul]

If they aren’t going to inc


I just don’t trust them. Something about this sounds slimy. People clearly meant they wanted the OGL to be irrevocable but they say “you want irrevocability” then only apply it to the Creative Commons license. The lesson I have learned from all this is, if they think they can do something, they will. If they won’t clearly acknowledge that the OGL 1a is irrevocable, they will at some point probably deauthorize again

What for?

Seriously -- what would be the point of trying this again, with the 5E SRD released under Creative Commons? We don't know for sure what their goal was this time, but there are several possibilities: They were trying to kneecap competition for their VTT, or they were trying to prevent another Pathfinder from happening down the road, or they were trying to get more control over the brand, or it was just a money grab.

None of those are possible any more. The CC license is out of WotC's hands -- there is nothing they can ever do to recall the 5E SRD now. The only people still exposed are users of the 3E and 3.5E SRDs, and they have nothing that would remotely justify the backlash.

As for this being "slimy"... I think a lot of people are making the mistake of thinking of "Wizards of the Coast" as a person who makes plans and does things. While it's often a convenient shorthand to talk about corporations that way (I did it myself above), you have to remember that it is a shorthand. Corporations do not plan or think or feel or act. They're just legal and accounting fictions, labels for organizing our stuff.

The decision to try to kill the OGL was made by a person. The decision to abandon the attempt and put the SRD into Creative Commons was also made by a person. They were almost certainly two different people. It's pretty clear that what we're seeing is the outcome of a power struggle, where one faction was on our side and one was against us. The second faction was originally in control, but the community's furious support tipped the balance in favor of the first -- which then seized the opportunity to put 5E out of reach of the second faction forever. (Notice how they put the Creative Commons PDF into the DDB post making the announcement? I can almost hear somebody thinking, "The big bosses could change their minds again tomorrow, so let's nail this down right freakin' now.")