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

 

[Maxperson]

So CC does say you will be breaching their trademark (which is different from copyright, of course) if you try to add extra terms to your license (which might apply to the case of WotC hypothetically saying "New users can't use the SRD 5.1 once we stop making the offer"). Whether CC would win if they did this is the crux of our discussion with pemerton, but the earlier point is clear: CC would take legal action against WotC for misusing their trademark if they did what @Maxperson suggests.

Challenging a contract or license isn't the same as misusing it.

 

[Ondath]

Challenging a contract or license isn't the same as misusing it.

I don't know what else to tell you.

 

[overgeeked]

That's their claim. See this post, though. There may be ways to challenge it that have a shot, however small, of succeeding.

The post, and some later ones, misrepresent what’s clearly and repeatedly stated by Creative Commons. The FAQs and various other pages make it explicit. CC is permanent and irrevocable. I quoted them above. Once in CC that’s it. No take backs.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what else to tell you.

View attachment 274161

You're confused between using a trademark, which WotC isn't doing, and challenging a contract. Nothing you've shown there involves anything WotC would be doing if challenging CC's validity.

The above quote would come into play if I were to say make my own brand of oatmeal, but put the quaker oats guy on it. I would be misusing/infringing on their trademark.

 

[Maxperson]

The post, and some later ones, misrepresent what’s clearly and repeatedly stated by Creative Commons. The FAQs and various other pages make it explicit. CC is permanent and irrevocable. I quoted them above. Once in CC that’s it. No take backs.

Their claims, FAQs, and other pages are just claims, not statutes or case law. A claim is just a claim. It might be and probably is based in law, but then so are most legal challenges.

 

[ThorinTeague]

I think my views of the legal situation have been shown to basically be correct. The only thing I got wrong was this: I did not anticipate how quickly parties to the OGL would give up on asserting and defending their legal rights.

Bud, it's not revocable. No matter how contorted your twist your tongue into linguistic acrobatics. We all have know what the deal was, for nearly a quarter of a century. LOL

 

[ThorinTeague]

At some point, can the claims in a lawsuit be so ridiculous that they result in punitive damages from the judge? I can see WotC having some vague case about deauthorizing the 1.0a. Taking on the CC-BY seems a bit more out there. In a case about CC-BY, who has choice of the venue where it is heard?

There's a $25,000 fine if the lawsuit is deemed frivolous: Frivolous litigation - Wikipedia

I believe contempt of court is a possibility, not totally sure on that one though.

 

[Maxperson]

Bud, it's not revocable. No matter how contorted your twist your tongue into linguistic acrobatics. We all have know what the deal was, for nearly a quarter of a century. LOL

May I ask where you got your law degree?

 

[ThorinTeague]

They aren’t going up against anyone. This is a hypothetical you’ve created. It’s not a thing. Relax.

They most definitely were going up against someone, friendo. They've backed down, for now. Until I see the architects of this course of action kicked to the curb, I'll assume the motivation remains.

 

[ThorinTeague]

What damages does CC suffer?

If people go around suing publishers for using CC material it weakens the point of CC, with producers losing confidence in the safety using the material.

Kinda like, you know... trying to revoke OGL 1.0a...