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

 

[Matt Thomason]

I am most likely wrong, but I don't think it works that way. You can't make a new document and say it terms apply to all the old documents, legally. So, if you make an OGL 1.0b with the changes you describe, everyone would still have to replace the 1.0a license with the 1.0b license. Again, I could very easily be wrong as this is just my common sense understanding.

You can't change my 1.0a license (to 1.0b) without my consent. So I would need to replace the a with the b to "consent." At least that is how I basically understand it.

I can't change your license to 1.0(b), but I can, under the terms written in1.0(a), distribute content you licensed out under 1.0a under the terms of 1.0(b).

What I don't know is if those terms are legally enforcable (thats where the legal people need to chime in), but the actual text of 1.0(a) allows someone to use any version of the license to gain access to your OGC, and to then publish their resulting work under.

My layman's understanding is that the terms of a hypothetical 1.0(b), should I choose to use it to redistribute your 1.0(a) OGC, would apply to my reuse of your OGC, and could not confer any additional obligations on you. (I might be wrong about this, but it seems incredibly stupid if a license update can place obligations on someone who did not accept the update.) Mostly it would be about confering rights and obligations on me as licensee, and to affect change in mechanisms within the license itself (e.g. changing the process for terminating it)

EDIT: Or basically what pemerton just said

 

[dave2008]

I'm not sure if this answers your question: but each licensee who is a party to a licence with WotC, on the terms set out in the OGL v 1.0/1.0a, has agreed (in section 9) to allow their work to be licensed by downstream users using any authorised variant that is promulgated by WotC.

What would count as a "variant" is a matter of contractual interpretation. But if WotC were to release such a variant, then downstream users could use that variant to license upstream OGC.

I get that, but is it automatic?

PF1 was published under OGL 1.0. If OGL 1.0b comes out, does PF1 automatically get the additional protections of 1.0b, or dies Paizo need to reprint/publish there books to include OGL 1.0b? I can't image it is automatic because 1.0b could have things you don't want, but maybe I am wrong.

 

[Cadence]

I am most likely wrong, but I don't think it works that way. You can't make a new document and say its terms apply to all the old documents, legally. So, if you make an OGL 1.0b with the changes you describe, everyone would still have to replace the 1.0a license with the 1.0b license. Again, I could very easily be wrong as this is just my common sense understanding.

You can't change my 1.0a license (to 1.0b) without my consent. So I would need to replace the "a" with the "b" to consent. At least that is how I basically understand it. Maybe @pemerton can clarify?

a 1.0b available gives active and moribund publishers the option of updating. Dead publishers obviously don't have the option (being dead), but the existence of a 1.0b would help demonstrate a continuity of intent in the terms of the licence should the 1.0/1.0a ever be legally challenged. So simply by existing, the 1.0b would give a small bit of extra protection, even for books that aren't updated to the new 1.0b.

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

 

[Ashtagon]

You can't change my 1.0a license (to 1.0b) without my consent. So I would need to replace the "a" with the "b" to consent. At least that is how I basically understand it. Maybe @pemerton can clarify?

That's pretty much what I've been saying.

Having a 1.0b available gives active and moribund publishers the option of updating. Dead publishers obviously don't have the option (being dead), but the existence of a 1.0b would help demonstrate a continuity of intent in the terms of the licence should the 1.0/1.0a ever be legally challenged. So simply by existing, the 1.0b would give a small bit of extra protection, even for books that aren't updated to the new 1.0b.

(Of course, for a publisher that is active or moribund, failure to update to an available 1.0b could be construed as a rejection of that update, a construction that can't be made of a dead publisher.)

 

[dave2008]

I can't change your license to 1.0(b), but I can, under the terms written in1.0(a), distribute content you licensed out under 1.0a under the terms of 1.0(b).

What I don't know is if those terms are legally enforcable (thats where the legal people need to chime in), but the actual text of 1.0(a) allows someone to use any version of the license to gain access to your OGC, and to then publish their resulting work under.

My layman's understanding is that the terms of a hypothetical 1.0(b), should I choose to use it to redistribute your 1.0(a) OGC, would apply to my reuse of your OGC, and could not confer any additional obligations on you. (I might be wrong about this, but it seems incredibly stupid if a license update can place obligations on someone who did not accept the update.) Mostly it would be about confering rights and obligations on me as licensee, and to affect change in mechanisms within the license itself (e.g. changing the process for terminating it)

Right, I get that if I have OGL 1.0b I can use your 1.0a content, but does your 1.0a content have the additional protections of my 1.0b license? I would think not - but maybe I am wrong.

 

[pemerton]

My layman's understanding is that the terms of a hypothetical 1.0(b), should I choose to use it to redistribute your 1.0(a) OGC, would apply to my reuse of your OGC, and could not confer any additional obligations on you. (I might be wrong about this, but it seems incredibly stupid if a license update can place obligations on someone who did not accept the update.) Mostly it would be about confering rights and obligations on me as licensee, and to affect change in mechanisms within the license itself (e.g. changing the process for terminating it)

This is the sort of thing I've been getting at in my repeated posts saying that what counts as a "version" is a matter of contractual interpretation - ie it's not just an arbitrary power enjoyed by WotC.

If you look at the 1.0 to 1.0a change, it does exactly what you say - it imposes new obligations on licensees in respect of product identity, by resolving any ambiguity in relation to registered trademarks.

I think this is why we haven't actually seen many variants: there aren't many additional ways n which WotC wants licensees to limit themselves.

 

[Cadence]

Right, I get that if I have OGL 1.0b I can use your 1.0a content, but does your 1.0a content have the additional protections of my 1.0b license? I would think not - but maybe I am wrong.

Anyone could just republish your 1.0a content under 1.0b (which you just said) and then it would be under 1.0b, right?

 

[eyeheartawk]

4: what incentive does WOtC have to shut down the OGL now? With the Cc release covering the things they were targeting with 1.1 and 1.2 versions, which were VTTs, essentially removing their ability to target them, they have no incentive to alter it. Competitors we always assumed was about Paizo and co. We were wrong in hindsight.

All of WOTC language and red lines dealt with the VTT and things that could impact the VTT and D&D Beyond. The fan policy has minor impact, it was all very weird but all essentially boiled down to digital tools and what VTT could do with the OGL. The competition they were targeting was other VTT and Demiplane.

Their number, 20%? That was based on DDB subscribers and average campaign sizes. 5 people, 1 dm and 4 players. Dm buys everything and shares across the campaign. No incentive for players to buy anything. It’s Netflix password sharing in their eyes. They want to incentivize players making purchases and not just groups sharing a singular account for the campaign and sharing books.

It was all more about D&D Beyond and never about physical media which tells you how big DDB is to their future plans and how quickly it grew during the pandemic and much like Netflix how they were trying to corner a market to keep their user base by getting to control complete access to the D&D experience, which, honestly, is their right.

How it impacted 3rd party publishers physical media, nor the shift to in person gaming post pandemic, since they don’t have a working VTT launched yet and people are still using DDB for their characters and campaigns, didn’t occur to them. They didn’t want to have the experience of Xbox or PS4 on their service, they wanted a Nintendo Seal of Approval, for content for people who remember that so they could advertise a family friendly space.

Physical publishing was never a concern. All Kickstarters essentially promised VTT integration, tokens, etc. if they cornered D&D content with the OGL they needed to control that.

This was almost the most confusing part to me too.

You know a much easier way too get more people to sign up and have everyone pay?

Make a really good product that the value proposition makes it a no-brainer. Which, given their resources they could easily do and basically dominate that space on the virtue of that fact alone. If you make a Gamepass for VTT (in terms of obvious value and utility) people will pay.

 

[dave2008]

"9. Updating the License: Wizards or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Game Content originally distributed under any version of this License."

I am aware of that section, but it doesn't answer my question. I don't know that I am confident, but @Ashtagon has the same understanding I do.

 

[Alzrius]

PF1 was published under OGL 1.0. If OGL 1.0b comes out, does PF1 automatically get the additional protections of 1.0b, or dies Paizo need to reprint/publish there books to include OGL 1.0b? I can't image it is automatic because 1.0b could have things you don't want, but maybe I am wrong.

By using the OGL v1.0, or the OGL v1.0a, you automatically agree (as per Section 9) to any Open Game Content you release being usable under any future version of the OGL, including a hypothetical OGL v1.0b.

 

[dave2008]

Anyone could just republish your 1.0a content under 1.0b (which you just said) and then it would be under 1.0b, right?

Yes, that is my understanding. But there is still a step. You could also republish to CC or now (for 5e at least).

 

[pemerton]

I get that, but is it automatic?

PF1 was published under OGL 1.0. If OGL 1.0b comes out, does PF1 automatically get the additional protections of 1.0b, or dies Paizo need to reprint/publish there books to include OGL 1.0b? I can't image it is automatic because 1.0b could have things you don't want, but maybe I am wrong.

See @Matt Thomason's excellent post at the top of this page, plus my reply to it just upthread. A purported "variant" that in fact purported to reduce the rights of licensors would probably not count as a variant at all for section 9 purposes.

If all it did was render express what is already implicit - which in my view is all that the suggested 1(b) wording does - then I guess it might be fine, but then it isn't actually changing anyone's legal position!

 

[dave2008]

By using the OGL v1.0, or the OGL v1.0a, you automatically agree (as per Section 9) to any Open Game Content you release being usable under any future version of the OGL, including a hypothetical OGL v1.0b.

I know that, that is not what I am asking. However, I think what I am asking is functionally irrelevant so I will drop it.

 

[Ashtagon]

Another thought.

Suppose there's a dead publisher book whose OGL 1.0 content I really want to use.

I simply can't use it under CC, no matter what. There's just no option.

At present I can take that OGL content, use it in my book, and publish that under OGL 1.0a. I could even make a book that contains all of their old OGL 1.0 content and publish it in my own OGL 1.0a book. However, the legal status of 1.0a hasn't been fully resolved vis a vis whether it can be revoked and whether it can be de-authorised. It's a ticking time bomb for me, because in principle WotC could launch another legal challenge. As many have noted, we can't see a reason for them to do so, but this time last year we couldn't see a reason for them to try it last month either.

With a 1.0b that fixes the revocation and authorisation issues, I can use that dead publisher's OGL 1.0 content, republish it in my book with a 1.0b licence, and be confident it will stand up to legal scrutiny. (In as much as anything can stand up to legal scrutiny of course.)

 

[billd91]

So... think this means they'll change 6e/One to be just different enough to not be compatible with 5e like they had originally planned?

I think that's unlikely for a few reasons.
1) It's late to shift gears like that considering it's supposed to release next year.
2) That would set up a situation where someone could try to Pathfinderize 5e on them. Anyone trying to do so would lack one thing Paizo had that was crucial - a big list of subscribers. But someone might be able to overcome that obstacle through the wider reach of various online resources that have grown and developed in the meantime including wider YouTube networks and Kickstarter.
3) They'd be trying to replace the most successful RPG ever since playing house or cops and robbers and have a lot of inertia to overcome to get people to switch. Making the switch a minor speed bump is in their interest even though it's also in the interests of the 5e 3PP as well.

I still think their best bet is to put out some prestige collectors bits for OneD&D at premium price for the nerds who will spend $$ on a 50-year collector's edition, put out a few other retrospective/art books to capitalize on the anniversary and nostalgia, put out a regular set of books for OneD&D that update the art and the rule tweaks that they're play testing, go forward with their VTT plans in expanding the capabilities of D&D Beyond, and attract 3PP to support the new edition with the carrot of easy access via the VTT/DDB rather than the stick of killing the OGL (which they have substantially mooted).

 

[Matt Thomason]

Right, I get that if I have OGL 1.0b I can use your 1.0a content, but does your 1.0a content have the additional protections of my 1.0b license? I would think not - but maybe I am wrong.

If I use 1.0b on your 1.0a content, it could give you additional protections from me. It believe it could also give me additional protections from any upstream licensor trying to invoke license processes upon me (such as "deauthorize", by specifying that my 1.0b license cannot be deauthorized).

What it wouldnt do is change your relationship with your upstream authors, unless you specifically update your work to 1.0b yourself.

 

[pemerton]

I know that, that is not what I am asking. However, I think what I am asking is functionally irrelevant so I will drop it.

Just to add to my previous post: if the irrevocability stuff really was a change, then it would reduce a licensor's rights (by more strongly binding them) and hence (as per my post and @Matt Thomason's posts) I think could not be imposed unilaterally on an upstream publisher's work by a downstream publisher.

Again, this is why I think we haven't seen variants since 1.0a. There's not much space for them to operate, except tightening up the product identity stuff.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Another thought.

Suppose there's a dead publisher book whose OGL 1.0 content I really want to use.

I simply can't use it under CC, no matter what. There's just no option.

At present I can take that OGL content, use it in my book, and publish that under OGL 1.0a. I could even make a book that contains all of their old OGL 1.0 content and publish it in my own OGL 1.0a book. However, the legal status of 1.0a hasn't been fully resolved vis a vis whether it can be revoked and whether it can be de-authorised. It's a ticking time bomb for me, because in principle WotC could launch another legal challenge. As many have noted, we can't see a reason for them to do so, but this time last year we couldn't see a reason for them to try it last month either.

With a 1.0b that fixes the revocation and authorisation issues, I can use that dead publisher's OGL 1.0 content, republish it in my book with a 1.0b licence, and be confident it will stand up to legal scrutiny. (In as much as anything can stand up to legal scrutiny of course.)

Exactly this. This is why CC is not a huge thing, its just the SRD to some game written by WotC, not the far, far greater body of work produced under the OGL by other parties

 

[pemerton]

Another thought.

Suppose there's a dead publisher book whose OGL 1.0 content I really want to use.

I simply can't use it under CC, no matter what. There's just no option.

At present I can take that OGL content, use it in my book, and publish that under OGL 1.0a. I could even make a book that contains all of their old OGL 1.0 content and publish it in my own OGL 1.0a book. However, the legal status of 1.0a hasn't been fully resolved vis a vis whether it can be revoked and whether it can be de-authorised. It's a ticking time bomb for me, because in principle WotC could launch another legal challenge. As many have noted, we can't see a reason for them to do so, but this time last year we couldn't see a reason for them to try it last month either.

With a 1.0b that fixes the revocation and authorisation issues, I can use that dead publisher's OGL 1.0 content, republish it in my book with a 1.0b licence, and be confident it will stand up to legal scrutiny. (In as much as anything can stand up to legal scrutiny of course.)

I don't think I agree.

If the dead publisher didn't confer the rights you want - ie if they retained some power of revocation - then I don't think WotC can give you the power to change that just by purporting to promulgate a new licence.

I think the 1.0b you are looking for is a bit illusory.

 

[Art Waring]

Phew. Getting to the end of the thread (page 33?) took a while.

I just want to thank everyone for helping in any way that you did.

Thank you for signing any of the various petitions & the #opendnd letter. Some folks here said that petitions don't change anything, but together we generated over 100,000 signatures across all of the petitions. Add that to the DDB unsubs, youtubers, 3pp's, and the entire community that banded together.

Thank you for supporting any 3pps during these difficult times (My wife bought me a hardcover copy of Cy_Borg as a gift during the past few weeks, thank you!). This has shown them just how unified the community is (at least when it comes to maintaining an open gaming community, editions wars will probably never end...).

Still work to be done though. The 3.5 SRD and the d20 modern SRD still need protecting, lets not forget that everyone deserves an open gaming community, not just one particular segment of it.

"We have done the impossible, and that makes us mighty." -Mal Reynolds