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

 

[Parmandur]

since arrangements of words can potentially be a copyrightable expression

Just as an aside: not "can be," definitely "are" copyright protected. One of the legal podcasts I listened to about this broke that down, that even if "mechanics" cannot be copyrighted, the words used absolutely are protected. Which is part of what makes the CC drop huge: people can use copyright protected language verbatim, forever.

 

[ThorinTeague]

How much money did they lose?

There is not yet a meaningful answer to that question. Quarters are what matter.

 

[Ashtagon]

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be...

"In the 4.0 license suite, licensees are required to indicate if they made modifications to the licensed material. This obligation applies whether or not the modifications produced adapted material. As with all other attribution and marking requirements, this may be done in a manner reasonable to the means, medium, and context. For example, "This section is an excerpt of the original." For trivial modifications, such as correcting spelling errors, it may be reasonable to omit the notice."

That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source material, re-arranging and re-phrasing things quite liberally. If we imagine as a thought experiment that the 3.5e SRD had been CC-BY and Pathfinder (1st edition) had been required to provide such an annotated list of every change from the source document, it would have been quite unwieldy.

Is a single-sentence blanket statement for the entire product suitable for this purpose, or are we required to document it more fully (and if so, how much more)?

 

[Parmandur]

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be...


That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source material, re-arranging and re-phrasing things quite liberally. If we imagine as a thought experiment that the 3.5e SRD had been CC-BY and Pathfinder (1st edition) had been required to provide such an annotated list of every change from the source document, it would have been quite unwieldy.

Is a single-sentence blanket statement for the entire product suitable for this purpose, or are we required to document it more fully (and if so, how much more)?

If actually publishing something, worth consulting an actual lawyer, but there are more practitioners familiar with CC than the OagL I'm sure.

 

[Mistwell]

You contradict yourself here. If OGL 1.0b cannot fix the issues with 1.0a, then CC-BY 4.0 definitely cannot!

ETA: Missed a bit:
Not exactly. OGL 1.0b would be compatible with OGL 1.0a and OGL 1.0, which AIUI CC-BY 4.0 is not. It would also, in this hypothetical, cover all the WotC SRDs not just the relatively tiny 5e SRD. And it would have the virality the ability to carve out PI, both of which CC-BY lacks.

I didn't contradict anything. No matter what, to be covered by a clearly irrevocable license, old publications would need to re-publish under a new license. You can re-publish under a 1.0b or a CC, but either way you'd need to re-publish. Which is what I said. NO new license can alter an old license without you re-publishing under that new license.

And yes, WOTC needs to put the 3.0, 3.5, and d20 Modern SRD in the CC to fully replace the OGL with the better CC license. Which I said and you cut out of your response But aside from that, CC is superior to the OGL as a license.

As for a 1.0b being "compatible" with 1.0a and 1.0, so is CC. They can work together just fine, You can publish using both licenses in the same product. You can also carve-out PI in the CC and there are lots of places to find instructions on how to do that. It's been used that way many, many times.

 

[Parmandur]

You can also carve-out PI in the CC and there are lots of places to find instructions on how to do that. It's been used that way many, many times.

So, in your opinion as a lawyer, does CC 5E (and motes if the older SRDs get released) basically make ORC a redundant effort?

 

[Hex08]

We already know the new edition uses 5.1. They said it did last week. They’re too late in the game. It won’t use the OGL, it will use CC.

You are right. Thats's why I said eventually and didn't specify the next edition.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

They don’t have time between now & next spring to develop that deeply. The OneD&D playtest is a near complete game, MotM is largely how we expect monsters to look, the DMG requires few changes, it’s class design they were focused on and that would need to be done by fall to get to the printer and back here for release in the spring as intended. If they intend to continue the open playtest, that’s not a lot of time at all which means most of the work is already done.

Well yeah. It's an update, not a new game, so a ton of the work is just...how can we organize this better, and how can we fix pain points without killing compatibility?

 

[MoonSong]

A small concern about the CC licence, which makes me suspect it might not be the gift it appears to be...


That's part of the requirements to use the CC-BY licence. I'm not quite sure how this would work in the context of RPG products, which often adapt fragments here and there from the source material, re-arranging and re-phrasing things quite liberally. If we imagine as a thought experiment that the 3.5e SRD had been CC-BY and Pathfinder (1st edition) had been required to provide such an annotated list of every change from the source document, it would have been quite unwieldy.

Is a single-sentence blanket statement for the entire product suitable for this purpose, or are we required to document it more fully (and if so, how much more)?

Attribution.

1. If You Share the Licensed Material (including in modified form), You must:
   1. retain the following if it is supplied by the Licensor with the Licensed Material:
      1. identification of the creator(s) of the Licensed Material and any others designated to receive attribution, in any reasonable manner requested by the Licensor (including by pseudonym if designated);
      2. a copyright notice;
      3. a notice that refers to this Public License;
      4. a notice that refers to the disclaimer of warranties;
      5. a URI or hyperlink to the Licensed Material to the extent reasonably practicable;
   2. indicate if You modified the Licensed Material and retain an indication of any previous modifications; and
   3. indicate the Licensed Material is licensed under this Public License, and include the text of, or the URI or hyperlink to, this Public License.
2. You may satisfy the conditions in Section 3(a)(1) in any reasonable manner based on the medium, means, and context in which You Share the Licensed Material. For example, it may be reasonable to satisfy the conditions by providing a URI or hyperlink to a resource that includes the required information.
3. If requested by the Licensor, You must remove any of the information required by Section 3(a)(1)(A) to the extent reasonably practicable.

Probably?

 

[Enrahim2]

As for a 1.0b being "compatible" with 1.0a and 1.0, so is CC. They can work together just fine, You can publish using both licenses in the same product. You can also carve-out PI in the CC and there are lots of places to find instructions on how to do that. It's been used that way many, many times.

From my understanding the PI mechanism isnt just about specifying things that is not covered by the license. It defines a domain you cannot use in your work trough other mechanisms than licensing. In other words you cannot for instance use those under a "fair use" claim. Can CC really do that?

I am also pretty certain that you would not be able to make an element deriving from both a CC-SA source and an OGL1.0a source? (Might be relevant if for instance someone publishes a monster for 5.1 under CC-SA, and someone else wanted to make a PF1 conversion of it)