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

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

No I know, and I’m fairly certain you can offer a derivative work under a dual license. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that as long as you license the new work under OGL, you can also license it under the CC, and that remains fine as long as the OGL is a legally recognized valid license.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

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.

According to the original intent of the OGL, a licensee could take something released under 1.1 and use it under the terms of 1.0a. That was the whole point of section 9. It was an attempt to make sure they could not make things more restrictive, because you would have permission to use the least restrictive version of the license. Is the license properly written to make that stick? Dunno, we'd probably have to ask several judges.

Now, if they released an OGL 1.8.4q that was as permissive as CC-BY, that would be very interesting chaos, because then everyone else's OGC would be usable under those terms. That's not something I had considered, that WotC potentially has the power to completely unlock all OGC.

 

[overgeeked]

According to the original intent of the OGL, a licensee could take something released under 1.1 and use it under the terms of 1.0a. That was the whole point of section 9. It was an attempt to make sure they could not make things more restrictive, because you would have permission to use the least restrictive version of the license. Is the license properly written to make that stick? Dunno, we'd probably have to ask several judges.

Now, if they released an OGL 1.8.4q that was as permissive as CC-BY, that would be very interesting chaos, because then everyone else's OGC would be usable under those terms. That's not something I had considered, that WotC potentially has the power to completely unlock all OGC.

No. Because it’s not up to WotC what version someone else uses. It doesn’t matter what terms are offered. It doesn’t matter what’s changed. The original creator is the only one who has any right to release their content under any terms.

 

[Plokman]

We saved a Neverending story! Lalalalala!

 

[SoonRaccoon]

No I know, and I’m fairly certain you can offer a derivative work under a dual license. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that as long as you license the new work under OGL, you can also license it under the CC, and that remains fine as long as the OGL is a legally recognized valid license.

No, any OGC must be licensed under the OGL. AFAIK, trying to offer OGC under the CC-BY would violate the terms of the OGL.

 

[SoonRaccoon]

No. Because it’s not up to WotC what version someone else uses. It doesn’t matter what terms are offered. It doesn’t matter what’s changed. The original creator is the only one who has any right to release their content under any terms.

By releasing your content under the OGL 1.0a, you are agreeing that the licensee may use that content under any authorized version of the OGL. That includes versions of the OGL released after you've published.

(edit for clarity)

 

[Matt Thomason]

No I know, and I’m fairly certain you can offer a derivative work under a dual license. I could be wrong, but I’m pretty sure that as long as you license the new work under OGL, you can also license it under the CC, and that remains fine as long as the OGL is a legally recognized valid license.

It's complicated.

Combined licenses are okay in theory - I can create a work under both OGL and ORC (assuming ORC comes out the way we're expecting), using some OGL sources and some ORC sources, and can then (in fact, must then) license my work out under both. That works because I'd have to specify which bits of content are OGL Open Game Content, and which are ORC Open Game Content, and which are Product Identity.

You can create a work that uses both CC and OGL sources (I posted an example above somewhere.)
What you couldnt do is take someones OGL-licensed Open Game Content, pull it into your work, and then license that out via CC, because you need the permission of the copyright owner to do so. So "pulling in" via both licenses is fine, but allowing reuse via anything except the license you obtained something under requires you get permission of the copyright owner. e.g. you can't change the licensing on someone elses work, only your own.

 

[Cadence]

Yes.

Waffle House doesn't even sell pancakes, do they?

Now Hashbrowns on the other hand...

 

[Plokman]

By releasing your content under the OGL 1.0a, you are agreeing that the licensee may use that content under any authorized version of the OGL. That includes versions of the OGL released after you've published.

(edit for clarity)

Yes, very much so.

Waffle House doesn't even sell pancakes, do they?

View attachment 274033

Now Hashbrowns on the other hand...

When we clean them out at the Waffle House, they'll bring in more ham and eggs!

 

[Ashtagon]

The cakes were lies? I don't thnk I can ever trust der waffel haus again. Next you'll be telling me that the eggs don' even come from chickens!