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

 

[JEB]

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.

Any lawyer for third parties would have been a fool not to dredge up that FAQ as part of their defense of OGL 1.0. A stronger, clearer statement of Wizards' inability to revoke would make Wizards' case even weaker.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

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.

1D&D, as planned, will be too similar to O5e to make a GSL license worth it. Unless they completely change course with 1D&D you will not need a new license to make stuff compatible with it. but who knows what they will try at this point!

 

[overgeeked]

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?

FG/Necro would have to publish it or release it using CC. Despite it being OGC they still own the content. No one else gets to decide on what further rights FG/Neceo gives up.

 

[Haplo781]

Any lawyer for third parties would have been a fool not to dredge up that FAQ as part of their defense of OGL 1.0. A stronger, clearer statement of Wizards' inability to revoke would make Wizards' case even weaker.

Where did you get your JD?

 

[Matt Thomason]

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.

There's probably a practical limit to what a "license update" under Section 9 can actually do (hopefully someone with legal knowledge will chime in.) Most likely it can only change the way the license itself works, such as amending how various clauses operate or adding an additional restriction (e,g that the licensor now has no way to terminate or deauthorise it) . I'd be very surprised if it could forcibly relicense someone's copyrighted work under a completely different unconnected license without their permission.

 

[JEB]

Where did you get your JD?

Already said IANAL. But unless you are a lawyer, and plan on citing specific legal reasons why public statements of intent wouldn't be admissible in court, this isn't helping your argument...

 

[JEB]

There's probably a practical limit to what a "license update" under Section 9 can actually do (hopefully someone with legal knowledge will chime in.) Most likely it can only change the way the license itself works, such as amending how various clauses operate or adding an additional restriction (e,g that the licensor now has no way to terminate or deauthorise it) . I'd be very surprised if it could forcibly relicense someone's copyrighted work under a completely different unconnected license without their permission.

But an OGL 1.0b probably could make itself irrevocable in a way that Wizards suggested 1.0 and 1.0a were not. Heck, just change the word "perpetual" to "irrevocable" - a change on the scale of 1.0 to 1.0a in the first place...

 

[Thaumaturge]

I’m just posting so history knows I was here!

Thaumaturge.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

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

This is true for your original content that you own the copyright to. You can offer your stuff under any license you like. However, I was talking about derivative works where you were including content that other people had released under the OGL or CC-BY. I apologize if that was unclear.

 

[Matt Thomason]

But an OGL 1.0b probably could make itself irrevocable in a way that Wizards suggested 1.0 and 1.0a were not. Heck, just change the word "perpetual" to "irrevocable" - a change on the scale of 1.0 to 1.0a in the first place...

I think that it could do that, yes. Anything that alters the license mechanics in that way seems like it should be possible in a license amendment under Section 9, especially if its purely the license creator putting extra restrictions upon themselves.