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]

They won't have to.

...?

It's an ironclad license, unlike the pretty fuzzy OGL. There is no Shennanigan play.

 

[Maxperson]

...?

It's an ironclad license, unlike the pretty fuzzy OGL. There is no Shennanigan play.

Sure there are. They can declare that they are withdrawing the license. CC can't sue them for that. They can send C&D letters to 3PP using CC. They can even engage in legal action against those small 3PP who can't afford to fight them. They need never go up against CC.

 

[Alzrius]

...?

It's an ironclad license, unlike the pretty fuzzy OGL. There is no Shennanigan play.

I think what @Maxperson is trying to say is that you don't need to have a winning legal strategy up your sleeve in order to cause fear, uncertainty, and doubt, which can result in people being reluctant to use a particular license. I heard plenty of lawyers opine that WotC would likely lose a court case about revoking/de-authorizing the OGL v1.0a on its merits, for instance, but there are still plenty of companies who've become leery of using it.

 

[Matt Thomason]

Sure there are. They can declare that they are withdrawing the license. CC can't sue them for that. They can send C&D letters to 3PP using CC. They can even engage in legal action against those small 3PP who can't afford to fight them. They need never go up against CC.

Unfortunately all too true.
We can try and reduce their practical options, but as @pemerton keeps pointing out to me, they can always find something to sue over if they really want to.

 

[darjr]

Best of both worlds. Keep OSRIC as is and creat a derivative, OSRICCC-BY on the SRD 5.1 under CC-BY

 

[pemerton]

Unfortunately all too true.
We can try and reduce their practical options, but as @pemerton keeps pointing out to me, they can always find something to sue over if they really want to.

I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, nor like Nostradamus.

But 10 and 15 years ago, when I was pointing out in my posts that there were interesting nuances to the OGL that would be enlivened if WotC ever decided to withdraw its offer to licence, nearly everyone who replied told me I was wrong, that the OGL was irrevocable, etc. When I patiently replied by pointing out the difference between an offer to license, and a licence; and also by pointing out that WotC's FAQ and other representations might give rise to an estoppel that would supplement the strict terms of the contract; no one seemed that interested.

I think my views of the legal situation have been shown to basically be correct. The only thing I got wrong was this: I did not anticipate how quickly parties to the OGL would give up on asserting and defending their legal rights. I hadn't appreciated how widespread the perspective was which looked at it not as an arms-length commercial licensing arrangement, but as a sweetheart deal among friends.

Perhaps the new world of the CC licence is guaranteed never to head in the same direction. But I haven't seen what the guarantee is yet, either in legal or in commercial terms.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't want to sound like Chicken Little, nor like Nostradamus.

But 10 and 15 years ago, when I was pointing out in my posts that there were interesting nuances to the OGL that would be enlivened if WotC ever decided to withdraw its offer to licence, nearly everyone who replied told me I was wrong, that the OGL was irrevocable, etc. When I patiently replied by pointing out the difference between an offer to license, and a licence; and also by pointing out that WotC's FAQ and other representations might give rise to an estoppel that would supplement the strict terms of the contract; no one seemed that interested.

I think my views of the legal situation have been shown to basically be correct. The only thing I got wrong was this: I did not anticipate how quickly parties to the OGL would give up on asserting and defending their legal rights. I hadn't appreciated how widespread the perspective was which looked at it not as an arms-length commercial licensing arrangement, but as a sweetheart deal among friends.

Perhaps the new world of the CC licence is guaranteed never to head in the same direction. But I haven't seen what the guarantee is yet, either in legal or in commercial terms.

I think that ORC needs to be made. I think it was you who mentioned that Paizo could years down the road engage in the same shenanigans WotC just did. But if there are two competing OGLs, they sort of keep each other in stasis, minimizing the chances of further shenanigans by both of them. Why revoke yours when everyone could and would just shift to the other?

 

[pemerton]

I think that ORC needs to be made. I think it was you who mentioned that Paizo could years down the road engage in the same shenanigans WotC just did. But if there are two competing OGLs, they sort of keep each other in stasis, minimizing the chances of further shenanigans by both of them. Why revoke yours when everyone could and would just shift to the other?

Maybe. This won't solve the core problem, though, of people wanting to build their own businesses publishing stuff that is dependent on a larger entity's commercialised IP - be that larger entity WotC or Paizo. As long as that is going on, licensing disputes are liable to break out!

 

[Parmandur]

Sure there are. They can declare that they are withdrawing the license. CC can't sue them for that. They can send C&D letters to 3PP using CC. They can even engage in legal action against those small 3PP who can't afford to fight them. They need never go up against CC.

It's not withdrawable.

 

[Cadence]

At some point, can the claims in a lawsuit be so ridiculous that they result in punitive damages from the judge? I can see WotC having some vague case about deauthorizing the 1.0a. Taking on the CC-BY seems a bit more out there. In a case about CC-BY, who has choice of the venue where it is heard?