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

 

[overgeeked]

Could not 1.0b specifically say something like 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.

Not really, no. Because they can't release other people's content under a license those other people didn't expressly agree to.

This is why you releasing something under the OGL doesn't mean I then get to release your content under CC. Because despite it being OGC you still own it. I have no right to release it under a different license. Likewise, WotC has no right to release other people's content under licenses they didn't agree to.

 

[JEB]

Not really, no. Because they can't release other people's content under a license those other people didn't expressly agree to.

This is why you releasing something under the OGL doesn't mean I then get to release your content under CC. Because despite it being OGC you still own it. I have no right to release it under a different license. Likewise, WotC has no right to release other people's content under licenses they didn't agree to.

OK, then why didn't people have to re-release OGL 1.0 material under OGL 1.0a?

 

[Vincent55]

 

[Matt Thomason]

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.

It's certainly a huge thing that we stopped a giant corporation dead in its tracks, and I'll be the first to admit I was not expecting that.
I'm happy. I've even allowed myself some celebratory time.
So, okay, in the spirit of that celebration and being thankful for everyone who helped - Yes, it's a victory
Personally, I still have to get up tomorrow morning and work on that wobbly keystone, but I'll try not to drag the victory celebration down any more for tonight

 

[Ashtagon]

Realistically, I don't see how a 1.0b could be retroactively applied to a book published with the 1.0 or 1.0a licences. If the original publisher isn't around to re-publish those older books under 1.0b, the best legal defence we can hope for those books if WotC gets drunk like this again is this. A combination of a) standard legal text at the time the older OGLs were written, b) Darcy's own statements, c) WotC's earlier faq regarding the licence's durability, d) the existence of a newer licence identical in all ways except to fix the text in line with modern legal terminology for this sort of case, and e) the fact that the older publishers are dead, would all combine to show a continuous intent for how the licence should read.

I'll grant it's not perfect, but it's the best possible way to protect that legacy content (short of waiting 75 years for it to fall out of copyright).

 

[overgeeked]

OK, then why didn't people have to re-release OGL 1.0 material under OGL 1.0a?

Because 1.0a was a continuation and slight change of some wording, not a drastic change to the rights given away. If 1.0b added CC release to the terms, fine. But then people would still have to opt in. WotC cannot take the original creator's rights away and give their content to others. For some bit of content to be released under any license, the original creator has to do so. A third party cannot do so unless legally authorized to do so. WotC has no authority from the tens of thousands of creators to do this.

"Yeah, if you released anything under OGL ever it's now all Creative Commons" is not something WotC has the legal right to do.

 

[Matt Thomason]

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.

It doesn't even need that, there's a clause in 1.0/1.0a that allows the use of any authorized version of the license for content made under any other version.

So yes, a 1.0(b) with "irrevocable and cannot be deauthorized" is all that's really needed, at that point any content from earlier versions can be used with that version.

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.

Anyone releasing content under the OGL has already agreed that any future version is usable for their content.

 

[Dausuul]

OK, then why didn't people have to re-release OGL 1.0 material under OGL 1.0a?

Because 1.0 was, and is, still valid. Anything that was released under 1.0 remains so. The owner can update to 1.0a, but nothing forces them to.

And if the work was abandoned before 1.0a was released, it will remain 1.0 forever.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

Not really, no. Because they can't release other people's content under a license those other people didn't expressly agree to.

This is why you releasing something under the OGL doesn't mean I then get to release your content under CC. Because despite it being OGC you still own it. I have no right to release it under a different license. Likewise, WotC has no right to release other people's content under licenses they didn't agree to.

That's what section 9 of the OGL 1.0a does.

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.

By releasing content under OGL 1.0a, you would be agreeing that anyone could also license your content under 1.0b, or whatever. Which is kind of funny, because this is the section that WotC seized on to try to kill the 1.0a because of the word "authorized".

 

[JEB]

It doesn't even need that, there's a clause in 1.0/1.0a that allows the use of any authorized version of the license for content made under any other version.

So yes, a 1.0(b) with "irrevocable and cannot be deauthorized" is all that's really needed, at that point any content from earlier versions can be used with that version.

Thank you, that was what I was trying to get across earlier. "OGL 1.0b can't be revoked" plus "you can use stuff from 1.0 and 1.0a under this license too (just like they can use 1.0b material)".