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

 

[ThorinTeague]

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.

I'm asking for the previous editions to be added. 3.0 and 3.5. I'm also asking for the architects of this course of action to be fired.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Well no, it is a victory.

This mindset…I’m sorry but it exhausts me.

There are victories that aren’t complete and without concession. A dead dragon was never the win condition.

It's a "successful defence". It's not a guarantee the dragon will not decide to attack again in a few years.

We pushed back, and we got more than we had before they pushed in the first place.

If you like, the dragon demanded tribute to not burn the village down, and it would still burn our neighbors down and eat all thier stuff.

We said no, pushed back, and the dragon said, “okay what about I patrol the valley every once in a while to keep every a little safer, and we drop the burning anyone stuff, but I’m still gonna eat all your neighbors cattle.

We said no. Resoundingly. The dragon said, “okay heard and understood I will not do any burning or eating of thing a that belong to any of you, and also the mountain pass that I require a toll to pass through will never have a toll again. I’ve already put an anti-dragon fire shield over it, so I can’t take it back.” And then flew away.

And you’re gonna refuse to call it a victory because the dragon didn’t move to another valley so it could never do any of that ever again. Because victory wasn’t complete and unambiguous enough for you.

The reason I don't want to call it "victory" is that we have not secured OGL 1.0(a), we've just stopped this attack on it. IMO, actually securing OGL 1.0(a) is unlikely to happen. Your analogy misses that only WotC's SRD 5.1 is secure, it's still possible to pull down the entire house of cards of 23 years worth of 3PP work by destroying the OGL foundation stone at the bottom of it all.

I do not want the dragon dead. What I do want is to make sure the village doesn't assume it's all over and we can stop worrying. The biggest lesson learned from this is not about defeating dragons, it's that there was a single unstable keystone in the wall that the dragon was able to attack in the first place.

The important thing from my own perspective is not to leave my livelihood reliant on the continued existence of the OGL, now it has been proven that it is such a risk..

So, okay, if you prefer - we can say we had a victory in this specific dragon attack. It even dropped a bit of gold by accident when fleeing. But we still have to do something about that unstable keystone - in this particular case, it looks like we have an option to stop the whole wall being reliant on it in the future. I'll sit and relax once that's done.

 

[Mistwell]

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.

Right, but if it was only released under 1.0, it's not covered by the differing portions of 1.0a.
There is no way for b to change a. Like, it's really quite well spelled out that way. Nothing in anther license can alter a prior license. It was part of the point.

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.)

I mean, they already did that with the prior FAQ and it didn't work.

 

[Haplo781]

I'm asking for the previous editions to be added. 3.0 and 3.5. I'm also asking for the architects of this course of action to be fired.

Why stop with 3.x?

 

[Dausuul]

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?

Suppose they did release a new OGL which was written to be irrevocable. Would you trust it? Would anyone? The lawyers here would debate it endlessly. The people who aren't lawyers but think they're legal geniuses would treat us to a parade of conspiracy theories. And the rest of us would stand there squinting warily at it like the illiterate peasants we are, having no idea if it was really okay this time. It would take months to hammer out the draft to everyone's satisfaction -- months during which the winds might shift again at WotC, and the "kill the OGL" faction regain power -- and even after all that, there would still be no certainty that Wizards wouldn't try this again someday.

So instead they used a Creative Commons license. It's already been drafted and it's not under WotC's control. They have made the 5E SRD as safe as it could ever be, and done it instantly with a single DDB post.

 

[Reynard]

It likely means One D&D will also end up OGL 1.0a & CC.

I don't think there's any reason to believe this. I think it is more likely they will attempt to make 6E something they can isolate from OGL related issues aka 4E GSL redux. Which is fine. They can do that if they want. It will mean they create their own competitors again, but they can do it. I think WotC still wants a Fortnite style D&D to monetize and they don't care if they have to "give" the community 5E to get it in the end, because it is worth FAR more than any number of 5E kickstarters.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

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.

I think this is a much smaller problem than you make it out to be.

Anything that is published under CC-BY could be taken and republished by anyone as OGC under the OGL 1.0a. So, if there is CC-BY content that you want to mix with OGL 1.0a content, you would release your product under OGL 1.0a.

Yes, this is a one way street. You can't take OGC and publish it under CC-BY. So, some publishers will be unable to offer their own content under CC-BY, but they will still be able to use CC-BY content.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It's a "successful defence". It's not a guarantee the dragon will not decide to attack again in a few years.


The reason I don't want to call it "victory" is that we have not secured OGL 1.0(a), we've just stopped this attack on it. IMO, actually securing OGL 1.0(a) is unlikely to happen. Your analogy misses that only WotC's SRD 5.1 is secure, it's still possible to pull down the entire house of cards of 23 years worth of 3PP work by destroying the OGL foundation stone at the bottom of it all.

I do not want the dragon dead. What I do want is to make sure the village doesn't assume it's all over and we can stop worrying. The biggest lesson learned from this is not about defeating dragons, it's that there was a single unstable keystone in the wall that the dragon was able to attack in the first place.

The important thing from my own perspective is not to leave my livelihood reliant on the continued existence of the OGL, now it has been proven that it is such a risk..

So, okay, if you prefer - we can say we had a victory in this specific dragon attack. It even dropped a bit of gold by accident when fleeing. But we still have to do something about that unstable keystone - in this particular case, it looks like we have an option to stop the whole wall being reliant on it in the future. I'll sit and relax once that's done.

Okay, it’s objectively a victory though, and it sucks to have people come into the “room” where everyone is talking about the victory, and say it isn’t a victory because another fight might be required later on.


It’s like winning a human rights fight and someone always has to be the person that refuses to celebrate or let others celebrate without bringing everyone down, by insisting that it isn’t really a victory because other human rights issues still exist.

Like, okay the dragon is still around. Okay. We still stopped it, got a more secure position, and showed unambiguously that we are willing and able to knock the dragon down if it tries again.

That ma a victory! Full stop.

 

[JEB]

There is no way for b to change a. Like, it's really quite well spelled out that way. Nothing in anther license can alter a prior license. It was part of the point.

Could not 1.0b have some chain of clauses like "all material licensed under 1.0 and 1.0a should also be considered to be licensed under 1.0b" and "the license to release material under 1.0b cannot be revoked"? Or something along those lines? IANAL, of course.

Bottom line is, plenty of other folks seem to see value in a 1.0b, so I think one could be drafted that would be beneficial to the OGL ecosystem. Just takes some imagination and willingness. What's the harm in making the attempt? Better to have that and also have other open licenses, no?

I mean, they already did that with the prior FAQ and it didn't work.

The FAQ - while absolutely something I would have used in court to defend OGL 1.0's intended irrevocability - didn't cover the specific legal shenanigan of de-authorizing a previous version of the license. That's the loophole that needs closed. At the very least, doing so would make this harder for them to repeat, as they'd have to come up with a novel legal theory.

 

[Corinnguard]

I feel like this scene from Ready Player One is oddly appropriate for what just happened between WoTC and the thousands of D&D fans in the last couple weeks.