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

 

[Morrus]

They can amend it; they already did once. It's perpetual, but not irrevocable or unchangeable.

I feel like the conversation just went back in time a month!

 

[Ondath]

I feel like the conversation just went back in time a month!

 

[FrogReaver]

They can amend it; they already did once. It's perpetual, but not irrevocable or unchangeable.

The lack of the word irrevocable never implied it was necessarily revocable. It's just good practice to make such explicit.

If I'm reading the particular CC licence correctly, it also makes content released under it use the same licence. So you'd get to use Mind Flayers and Beholders if you wanted to; but then your own IP would also become available for anyone else to use in the future. So, ah, when people talk about just wanting to make content for D&D - go ahead, but you're not making content and stopping others from using it afterwards.

I don't think you are reading the CC license correctly. What makes you think your IP must also be released under CC-BY-4.0?

 

[dave2008]

That maybe true if all you care about is the 5e SRD. For anyone who cares about the vast library of non-5e OGC accumulated over the last 23 years, CC does literally nothing (or at least, pretty damn close to it).

I am not sure what you are getting at, but they could release more edition SRDs under CC, as the discussed in the OGL 1.2 FAQ.

If you are talking specifically about OGL1.0(a), then there is really nothing they can do about that. The can make a new version of the license with irrevocable or whatever, but that doesn't change the existing license. All they can do is promise to not try to deauthorize - which they did. Of course they have lost the communities trust about that. But, if I understand things correctly, and I may not, there is nothing more they can do.

It has fallen well short of mine (while still being better than I really expected).

My goodness, what do you need? As I said in another thread - I still want more, as in different things, but this exceeded my expectations.

Even before this, there were plenty of signs that it was not going to be as compatible as they were billing it.

And a lot of signs it will be very compatible. So much so, a new SRD isn't needed to write 3PP content for it. That beings said I will be mildly surprised if the don't release an update SRD for 1D&D to CC.

We obviously do not know for sure, but most people seem to be assuming that ORC will be specifically designed for RPGs and will have features similar to the OGL that CC lacks.

Yes, my understanding is that it doesn't have a feature to protect your work like "Product Identity" (except trademarks) in the OGL. I find it a little funny that some people clamoring for D&D to be freely available to everyone are really trying to hold on to their own creations whike using someone else's whole-hog!

Nothing except memories of the bloody nose they just got...which will inevitably fade.

And that there is not a lot of point with the 5.1 SRD (and possibly more) already available as CC. You can pretty much create an 3e game from the 5e SRD. The 5e SRD they released to the CC is more inclusive than the 3e/3.5e version in some ways, though missing some 3e-isms too.

I will be very surprised. People in this thread (at least some of whom really should not bettter) are declaring this a complete victory already, so why should they offer any more concessions?

I expect them to release the 3e/3.5e SRD to CC too. We will see, but I think we will hear more next week. 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.

"Need" in the sense that it is the only way to be sure that WotC will not try to pull this again five, ten, or twenty years down the road.

Just to be clear, an updated OGL will not do anything about everything already published under the OGL 1.0(a). It would provide a new path forward (like ORC), but it can't go back in time. So even with a new OGL, they could try to deauthorize the 1.0(a) again. There is nothing that can stop those shenanigans' except WotC themselves (and collective push back of course).

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.

 

[dave2008]

That closes the gap for things that only rely on the SRD. But take something like Night of Frozen Shadows (part 2 of the Jade Regent AP), which in addition to the SRD uses Green Ronin's Advanced Bestiary, Necromancer Games' Tome of Horrors III, as well as three monsters (separately credited) from Tome of Horrors, Revised.

Tome of Horrors and its later-edition versions would likely be a particularly sticky point. I don't know what Necromancer Games' deal with Wizards was regarding the monsters in it, but I wouldn't be surprised if they (and their successor Frog God Games) don't have the rights to release it under CC even if they wanted to.

Is there anything the can do about that though? I mean really, is there? I am assuming those were published under the OGL 1.0a. If so, the best WotC can do is to not touch it - which they said is the plan (I know, I know). They can't retroactively change those licenses. They can make a new one, a OGL 1.0b if you will, but that doesn't change the contract those products were published under.

The only thing I can think of is republishing everything under the OGL 1.0(a) under a new better license, the CC for example, and that takes more than WotC to achieve.

 

[dave2008]

I just meant that they were going to make a move to change the game enough that it couldn't be retro-cloned off the 5.1 SRD, not that it would look anything like 4E.

That is possible, but I don't see that happen for '24 D&D. Maybe if and when they get around to a true 6e. '24 D&D was not that and I don't expect them to change their plans for '24 D&D now.

It feels to me that the D&D creatives in WotC won a victory and they may be able to push forward and win the war. We will see though.

 

[Ashtagon]

Presumably someone has the rights to their material?

In the case of one-man bands, that would typically mean the rights pass to their widow or a child. And for many such people, resolving somewhat esoteric legal rights for third parties to use that material, with no financial compensation, is a rather low priority.

 

[glass]

If they actually literally release the 5.1 SRD into the Creative Commons, which it seems they've already done, then it realistically doesn't matter. They don't control the CC, and once you release something into the CC, you can't take it back (as the creators of the CC-BY-SA intended), and not only that, but CC-BY-SA includes the requirement that the license is (and must be) transferable to others as well.

It's CC-BY, not CC-BY-SA. There is no sharealike requirement.

I can now write things containing "dragonborn" and not be constantly worried about a C&D ruining everything because I can't fight a winnable but expensive court case.

If not actually having a case does not absolutely prevent lawfare under OGL then it does not prevent it under the CC either. Although it does probably make it rather less likely.

How do we know we can trust them?

We cannot. To quote Maya Angelou once again, "When someone shows you who they are believe them the first time."

In other words, you shouldn't ever actually trust a corporation.

You cannot live in the modern world without trusting multiple corporations every day. The trick is that trust should never be absolute, and should be reassessed when a company does something as monumentally monstrous as what WotC attempted to do.

I might be mis-remembering, but I thought that the goal all along was for OneD&D to be completely compatible with 5E.

That was the stated aim, but two playtest packets in we have only seen a tiny subset of the full proposed game and they have already introduced multiple significant incompatibilities.

Wait a minute… Wizards of the Coast are evil and hate players right? Why on earth would they do this…

"Hate" may not quite be the word, but "has contempt for" certainly fits. EDIT: Not everyone who works for WotC of course, but a non-trivial portion of their senior management.

Formally and publicly disclaiming that they or their successors have the right or ability to ever de-authorize or revoke OGL 1.0a would be a pretty forceful statement.

It wouldn't hurt, but they already did that and it did not prevent the recent shenanigans (although it may be why the partially backed down rather than powering through).

Yes, my understanding is that it doesn't have a feature to protect your work like "Product Identity" (except trademarks) in the OGL. I find it a little funny that some people clamoring for D&D to be freely available to everyone are really trying to hold on to their own creations whike using someone else's whole-hog!

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.

I am not sure what you are getting at, but they could release more edition SRDs under CC, as the discussed in the OGL 1.2 FAQ.

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.

If you are talking specifically about OGL1.0(a), then there is really nothing they can do about that. The can make a new version of the license with irrevocable or whatever, but that doesn't change the existing license.

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.

All they can do is promise to not try to deauthorize - which they did.

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.

 

[Cadence]

If I'm reading the particular CC licence correctly, it also makes content released under it use the same licence. So you'd get to use Mind Flayers and Beholders if you wanted to; but then your own IP would also become available for anyone else to use in the future. So, ah, when people talk about just wanting to make content for D&D - go ahead, but you're not making content and stopping others from using it afterwards.

They released the SRD under CC-BY, not a CC-SA license. As such there is no share alike requirement for your adaptation of the SRD, you can do anything at least as restrictive as CC-BY, such as CC-ND-NC or locking down your new version under copyright (as long as you don't try to apply something like a DRM in a way that would hit the original source too).

 

[teitan]

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.

 

[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.