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

 

[Ashtagon]

I think what needs to be remembered that I am noticing also, especially amongst some of the OsR crowd, is that the OsR movement didn’t happen because WOTC released 0e-2e as OGC. Some on Twitter seem to be thinking that was the case but what enabled the OSR was Finch & Marshall back engineering the SRD into OSRIC and creating a license for that and then Finch constructing S&W white box, core & complete plus the BX and BECMI clones that emerged off of that original move, showing that it could be done. There is some hubbub about it and how they need to release those SRDs into CC as well. They don’t have the right to the SRDs that the OSR is built on to release them. Those publishers would need to do that.

(emphasis mine)

So what you are saying is that their ODR SRD relies on the WotC SRD as a foundation stone? If the foundation on which your structure is built can be removed, then then there's still a problem. Those products and documents using that foundation stone are still vulnerable to another attack on the OGL and/or WotC SRD.

 

[dave2008]

You get that CC-BY has no sharealike requirement at all, right? So you indignation against people wanting partial but not total downstream licensing seems rather misplaced.

No I don't. I don't know much about the CC. It is clearly some type of misunderstanding on my part.

They could, but why would they. With all the people declaring victory and patting themselves and WotC on the back, the pressure for further concessions has evaporated.

I already listed a reason in my previous response, but you didn't quote that part so maybe you skipped it? Anyway, here is what I said:

"As to why they would do it: there is little value in holding back at this point and it will foster more good will, and they still need as much of that as they can get."

If you are talking about people claiming victory here on EnWorld, that amounts to a whole heap of nothing. Paizo has already said they still see the need for and will continue with ORC, EnWorld publishing has noted the need for more, Black Flag will continue, etc. It is hardly like everyone is lining up behind them now.

I don't get why both you and @Mistwell stated that there is nothing they can do about it, and then immediately list the thing they can do about it. They could release a 1.0b which is identical to 1.0a except that it includes the word "irrevocable" in a couple of prominent places and gives a sensible definition for "authorised", and then release their SRDs under it. Section 9 would pretty-much take care of the rest. EDIT: Nothing is completely proof against bad actors, but that applies to the CC too. Nonetheless, everything you close off or clarify makes misbehaviour less likely.

I can't speak for Misty, but my understanding is a new OGL 1.0b, as you describe above, doesn't do anything for things already published under 1.0a. If you want the additional protections under 1.0b, you would have to reprint the work with the new license. I don't see were section 9 changes that. I could be misunderstanding again - I'm an architect, not a lawyer!

That being said, I am all for a new OGL. Again I said that in my previous response:

"That being said, I would like either a new, better written, OGL for future use; or they could just adopt ORC if that develops well."

No, they did not. They said they are not deauthorising it right now. They have not promised that they will never try again in the future, nor admitted that they lack the power to do so.

You are correct - the said they are not touching the OGL. That being said they promised it couldn't be revoked before and that amounted to nothing. A promise is not legally binding as far as I can tell. Also, there is debate about whether they lack the power to revoke/deauthorize. They could say that now, but change their minds later. I just don't find this requirement compelling as we have just gone down this road. I would be fine if they made such statements, but my faith in them would be 0%. I trust a well written legal document more than the statements and promises of a corporation.

 

[teitan]

(emphasis mine)

So what you are saying is that their ODR SRD relies on the WotC SRD as a foundation stone? If the foundation on which your structure is built can be removed, then then there's still a problem. Those products and documents using that foundation stone are still vulnerable to another attack on the OGL and/or WotC SRD.

Not really. WOtC won’t care about 3.x based OGL1.0a anymore. And if you paid attention to any of these debates WOTC can’t copyright rules, these are all unique expressions of rules. I said these SRDs should be released to the Creative Commons by their copyright holders to strengthen the OSR. That’s what people aren’t getting. The OGL at a certain point is just there to let people use your stuff. Release it under something else instead and it’s no longer under WOTC’s control. Since 5.1 is under CC and CC allows tweaking, the argument stands that these are tweaks anyway if you really want that protection on a product that, let’s just be Frank, WOTC doesn’t care about because if they cared about the OSR they would have already come after it in 2007 instead of courting it for 5e and bringing in authors as consultants.

 

[Ondath]

(emphasis mine)

So what you are saying is that their ODR SRD relies on the WotC SRD as a foundation stone? If the foundation on which your structure is built can be removed, then then there's still a problem. Those products and documents using that foundation stone are still vulnerable to another attack on the OGL and/or WotC SRD.

Except, that foundation can't be removed anymore. The SRD 5.1 is in CC-BY 4.0. There's no taking it back. Everything that was used in the 3E SRD (to walk back on something I said, psionics as it exists for monsters is included in the SRD, so even psionics can be recreated!) to create OSRIC and other retroclones already exists in SRD 5.1. And since that content is now free to use, any retroclone can continue publishing as is simply by using the SRD 5.1-CC basis.

Granted, old OSR works under the OGL still maintain their vulnerability, but literally changing nothing in the game content and making a second print where the OGL legal disclaimer is replaced by the CC disclaimer should be enough in most cases. There is the problem of orphaned works, and I do wish WotC made an irrevocable OGL v1.0b to deal with that, but at least the basic existence of the scene is now secure.

 

[Ondath]

To add another point, the whole reason WotC considered deauthorising OGL v1.0a in the first place was so that they could wall up the D&D ecosystem both in terms of competing systems and VTT use. With SRD 5.1, that's no longer possible. Anyone can make any kind of VTT (or presumably even a video game!) using SRD 5.1 now, and the same applies for Pathfinder-like products. So while the vulnerability WotC exposed in the OGL is still there, WotC no longer has any motivation to exploit it. Even if they deauthorised the OGL now, they won't gain anything from it.

 

[Staffan]

Thinking aloud, could Frog God's/Necromancer's "Tome of Horrors" books (which specifically featured a lot of older D&D monsters from the likes of the AD&D1e Fiend Folio) be used under the CC or would they strictly only still be permissible under the OGL 1.0? Would FGG be able to republish the ToH with the new 5.1 CC?

You need to use the OGL to access things in Tome of Horrors. I'm not sure FGG even could release it under CC – that would depend on whatever agreement Necromancer had with Wizards back in the day, but it seems likely that the agreement stipulates that they have to be released under the OGL.

 

[teitan]

Except, that foundation can't be removed anymore. The SRD 5.1 is in CC-BY 4.0. There's no taking it back. Everything that was used in the 3E SRD (to walk back on something I said, psionics as it exists for monsters is included in the SRD, so even psionics can be recreated!) to create OSRIC and other retroclones already exists in SRD 5.1. And since that content is now free to use, any retroclone can continue publishing as is simply by using the SRD 5.1-CC basis.

Granted, old OSR works under the OGL still maintain their vulnerability, but literally changing nothing in the game content and making a second print where the OGL legal disclaimer is replaced by the CC disclaimer should be enough in most cases. There is the problem of orphaned works, and I do wish WotC made an irrevocable OGL v1.0b to deal with that, but at least the basic existence of the scene is now secure.

This is what I have been trying to tell people all night.

 

[Yaarel]

I actually expect a survey about what features they can put in a license for 5.5e/6e material or whether they should also license under OGL/CC-BY. I think the D&D community would be much more amicable to additional restrictions on new material as opposed to pulling the rug out from everyone on existing material.

When 4e came out with the nonopen GSL, it was a bad idea then. I feel a new nonopen license for 6e would be a bad idea now.

I dont think a shift to a digital environment changes this principle either. Open content is still a good business strategy.

What is different is, everyone now realizes − including Hasbro-WotC − that nothing in the SRDs is actually copyrightable. Most of it is noncopyrightable gamerules along with clearly public domain ideas, mostly from reallife folkbeliefs around the planet.



I suspect, for 6e, Hasbro-WotC will focus on things that are copyrightable, specific names of people and places, stories about specific people (including people who are dragons and so on).

In other words, 6e will focus the energy on setting content − with deep rich worlds. More like Forgotten Realms, but even less generic.

For example, the D&D movie that is coming out, it will have − for the sake of the movie − specific characters in specific challenges and lots of extraneous details, which in fact are copyrightable.

Because of the shift into setting development, they will relax about trying to control the noncopyrightable generic public-domain minimalist setting implications in the SRD.


So, 6e wont really have much to give to an SRD.



Suppose 6e finally did come out with a Psion class. Hasbro-WotC might consider putting this class − stripped of any copyrightable content − into Open Content. But stuff like this would happen rarely and be piecemeal. For example, if they create a new Fighter subclass, it will be written more like a Prestige Class, laced and baked in with copyrightable setting details. I suspect Hasbro-WotC wouldnt release this Fighter subclass to Open Content. Especially if the Fighter subclass becomes popular, they would try make it an aspect of the D&D brand recognition to monetize it in future movies and videogames licensing.

I feeling is. Hasbro-WotC will no longer give out content to Open Gaming Content, or do it rarely only for specific rules mechanics. But at the same time, the Open Gaming community wont really need Hasbro-WotC to release specific setting details. Open Gaming already has most of the mechanics and basic medievalesque magic themes in the 5.1 SRD.

There might be a new era of symbiosis.

 

[teitan]

You need to use the OGL to access things in Tome of Horrors. I'm not sure FGG even could release it under CC – that would depend on whatever agreement Necromancer had with Wizards back in the day, but it seems likely that the agreement stipulates that they have to be released under the OGL.

I do believe the new one doesn’t have that arrangement. I don’t have a copy but any 1.0a would need republished anyway, even if they added the word irrevocable to it.

 

[teitan]

When 4e came out with the nonopen GSL, it was a bad idea then. I feel a new nonopen license for 6e would be a bad idea now.

I dont think a shift to a digital environment changes this principle either. Open content is still a good business strategy.

What is different is, everyone now realizes − including Hasbro-WotC − that nothing in the SRDs is actually copyrightable. Most of it is noncopyrightable gamerules along with clearly public domain ideas, mostly from reallife folkbeliefs around the planet.



I suspect, for 6e, Hasbro-WotC will focus on things that are copyrightable, specific names of people and places, stories about specific people (including people who are dragons and so on).

In other words, 6e will focus the energy on setting content − with deep rich worlds. More like Forgotten Realms, but even less generic.

For example, the D&D movie that is coming out, it will have − for the sake of the movie − specific characters in specific challenges and lots of extraneous details, which in fact are copyrightable.

Because of the shift into setting development, they will relax about trying to control the noncopyrightable generic public-domain minimalist setting implications in the SRD.


So, 6e wont really have much to give to an SRD.



Suppose 6e finally did come out with a Psion class. Hasbro-WotC might consider putting this class − stripped of any copyrightable content − into Open Content. But stuff like this would happen rarely and be piecemeal. For example, if they create a new Fighter subclass, it will be written more like a Prestige Class, laced and baked in with copyrightable setting details. I suspect Hasbro-WotC wouldnt release this Fighter subclass to Open Content. Especially if the Fighter subclass becomes popular, they would try make it an aspect of the D&D brand recognition to monetize it in future movies and videogames licensing.

I feeling is. Hasbro-WotC will no longer give out content to Open Gaming Content, or do it rarely only for specific rules mechanics. But at the same time, the Open Gaming community wont really need Hasbro-WotC to release specific setting details. Open Gaming already has most of the mechanics and basic medievalesque magic themes in the 5.1 SRD.

There might be a new era of symbiosis.

They don’t have time between now & next spring to develop that deeply. The OneD&D playtest is a near complete game, MotM is largely how we expect monsters to look, the DMG requires few changes, it’s class design they were focused on and that would need to be done by fall to get to the printer and back here for release in the spring as intended. If they intend to continue the open playtest, that’s not a lot of time at all which means most of the work is already done.