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

 

[Mistwell]

Cool. So all the 1.0a stuff wouldn't automatically go to 1.0b, but someone sufficiently bored could do it for everything they had access to pretty easily... assuming 1.0a wasn't deauthorized before they finished.

Yeah

 

[Sorcerers Apprentice]

No? I mean yes you are allowed to publish under a new license, but it doesn't automatically put your content in a new license. Someone can use the new license to publish (newly) anything put in the old license, but it doesn't automatically retroactively happen unless someone actually publishes it that way with the new license.

I don't see what the practical difference is?

Either way it seems you're free to take Open Gaming Content that was published under 1.0a and incorporate it into a new work published under 1.0b.

 

[Alzrius]

They would just need to release the OSRIC rulebook into Creative Commons.

Can they do that if it's still derived from the 3.5 SRD?

 

[Bitbrain]

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.

Gods, I love that scene. Probably my favorite in the whole movie.

Certainly feels appropriate to the situation in my opinion.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Their massive scars, and the memory of the beating they just took.

Wait...you think they took a beating? How much money did they lose?

What they did was plumb the waters. They determined who stood where. And it didn't cost them anything.

Having accumulated data, they have chosen the path they will take going forward. With a definite roster of who their enemies are.

Time will tell who benefits from happened in these last weeks. This is going to be interesting to watch.

 

[Scribe]

Wait...you think they took a beating? How much money did they lose?

As far as stocks being 'money' and 'real value', they lost yes.

 

[Jd Smith1]

As far as stocks being 'money' and 'real value', they lost yes.

Stock fluctuate. this doesn't even look likely to impact the first quarter returns.

But what has been done to WotC's view of the small publishers? Do you suppose that WotC had only one plan when they released the rumor? Which plan are they going with, now?

This reminds of the French peasants celebrating the fall of a King, with the Terror and twenty years of fighting for an Emperor ahead, before returning to a King.

Bookmark this thread, and come back in January 2024. You'll be getting an idea about who won and who lost around that time.

 

[Scribe]

But what has been done to WotC's view of the small publishers?

?

There view will be what it was before, until/unless, the leadership (lol) changes its views or takes on knowledge from the last few weeks.

You think Wizbro is playing 4D chess here? They are clowns, and they look it.

 

[pemerton]

I was just looking at OGL 1.0a and it may not even matter if they do deauthorize 1.0a. When you release under 1.0a you are agreeing that anything you release is OGC and is usable by people later, and you are including the license to do so in the product itself.

For instance, looking at the Lost Artifacts of Greyghast PDF I got last week I see this.

"Product Identity: The following items are hereby identified as Product Identity and are not
Open content: All trademarks, proper names (characters, locations, etc.), dialogue,
narratives, artwork, origins, variant rules, and item names.

Open Content: Except for material designated as Product Identity, the materials in this book
are Open Game Content and may be reproduced in any form without written permission."

I don't believe that permission for use goes away if 1.0a is revoked and has been required to be included with all 1.0a products released to date.

You are correct - as some of us have been saying for the past few weeks! - that WotC can't change the private law relationships (contracts and licences) that exist between other parties. And I haven't seen any attempt by WotC to claim otherwise - all the suggestions that it can do that have been exaggerations by posters, bloggers etc who have not articulated their concerns in legal terms.

What WotC was hoping to do, it seems, was to bring it about that licences over its IP would come to an end. This would mean that if you take up the offer in that Lost Artefacts pdf, and if the stuff that that offer purports to license infringes a WotC copyright (eg it is derivative of some WotC material), then when you use it you might also be infringing WotC's copyright and thus liable to WotC.

My view is that WotC have given the Lost Artefact people the power to license WotC's work to you, and WotC can't take that power away because they are contractually bound to the Lost Artefact people. But it's not clear that WotC agrees with me! This paragraph is where the controversy over "deauthorisation" lives.

 

[HomegrownHydra]

Wait...you think they took a beating? How much money did they lose?

What they did was plumb the waters. They determined who stood where. And it didn't cost them anything.

Having accumulated data, they have chosen the path they will take going forward. With a definite roster of who their enemies are.

Time will tell who benefits from happened in these last weeks. This is going to be interesting to watch.

At a minimum they lost numerous DnDBeyond subscribers and certainly will lose some physical book sales. If their approach wasn't costing them significant amounts of money they would still be trying to eliminate the OGL. They definitely would not have put the 5e SRD into Creative Commons.