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

 

[Greg Benage]

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.

I mean, no, that’s not worth a whole lot IMO. If it’s not actually true under the common law of contracts, what’s the point in someone currently at WotC making such a statement?

On the other hand, they’ve created a truly irrevocable practical disincentive to ever bother withdrawing their offer under the OGL, since they’ve released their game to the commons.

If that still isn’t enough security, licensing another publisher’s IP maybe isn’t the best option.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wait

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.

I’m pretty sure you can publish something that uses OGL1.0a content under CC. It might sticky if you do so after a hypothetical OGL 1.0a debacle 2.0 that we collectively lose, but otherwise…

 

[SpaceOtter]

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?

 

[SoonRaccoon]

Wait

I’m pretty sure you can publish something that uses OGL1.0a content under CC. It might sticky if you do so after a hypothetical OGL 1.0a debacle 2.0 that we collectively lose, but otherwise…

No, the OGL has "share-alike" clauses that require you to also publish under the OGL. Other terms for licenses like this are "copyleft" and "viral".

 

[Henadic Theologian]

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.

After this disaster I doubt they will go the GSL path for One D&D, no the lesson they got is clear and total, so yeah One D&D will be OGL 1.0a. Maybe CC as well.

 

[JEB]

what’s the point in someone currently at WotC making such a statement?

If Wizards publicly stated that they and successors have no right to revoke OGL 1.0, it would further undermine any future attempts to de-authorize. The gesture would also help strengthen their claim that they're not going to pursue changes to the OGL.

Also, it would be great PR, and they could use some of that right now.

Here's a counter-question for folks: why shouldn't they publicly disclaim their right to de-authorize OGL 1.0? What's the downside for everyone else if they do this?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Other than replacing the OGL text with the Creative Commons text, I think so. My copy of SRD 5.1 even has the beholder references etc.

EDIT: One clarification. As pointed out in another thread, the OGL text protected terms like "beholder" while CC does not. So while the text of the SRD is the same, technically more of it is open-source now. (Surely an accident, but too late.)

I doubt it’s accidental. They walked back every part of what they were trying to do. That includes taking back that which was free under the OGL. Then they gave us more than we had, including the “PI” in the SRD.

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

Thanks. I’m sorry to get aggro about it, it has been a very trying week, with a lot of doomsaying and such.

The battle is won, but the work continues. Tomorrow.

Tonight is for drinking!

(I mean not really I just got off a closing shift Imma sleep )

No, the OGL has "share-alike" clauses that require you to also publish under the OGL. Other terms for licenses like this are "copyleft" and "viral".

I’m pretty sure you can dual-license. You can’t publish not under OGL, but you can publish under OGL and CC.

Again, the only potential thorn is if wotc kills the OGL, and then you publish the hypothetical work, or if you try to not include the OGL in spite of using OGC.

 

[Matt Thomason]

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?

It's complicated.

Simply importing the SRD content under CC, attributing Wizards, and publishing "ToH 2.0" as a copyrighted work, sure.

If they wanted to make that work reusable by others, it gets messy, because while they have permission via CC to use WotC's copyrighted SRD text, they don't have permission to relicense it., only the copyright holder can do that. They could pull out everything thats 100% their own work into an SRD-like document and declare that under CC-BY-4.0, though

 

[overgeeked]

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

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".

And adding text to say anything released previously under the OGL is now also released under CC would cause a riot on par or bigger than with what we’ve just seen.

If WotC could do that they’d just as easily say the terms of 1.1 retroactively apply to all content released previously. So ha ha, time to pay up. They didn’t because even in their delusions about de-auth they still knew they couldn’t automatically sign people up to the new terms.

 

[Haplo781]

If Wizards publicly stated that they and successors have no right to revoke OGL 1.0, it would further undermine any future attempts to de-authorize. The gesture would also help strengthen their claim that they're not going to pursue changes to the OGL.

Also, it would be great PR, and they could use some of that right now.

Here's a counter-question for folks: why shouldn't they publicly disclaim their right to de-authorize OGL 1.0? What's the downside for everyone else if they do this?

They literally issued a FAQ saying "If we update the OGL in a way you don't like you can just ignore it" and still tried to weasel out of it.

Public statements aren't worth jack.