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]

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?

In most countries, the lower has to everyone's legal fees...which means that people are somewhat reluctant to bring frivolous lawsuits on the offchance there will be a settlement, which is The American Way.

 

[Maxperson]

It's not withdrawable.

Irrelevant. That doesn't stop them from declaring it so and engaging in acts designed to intimidate small guys out of the market.

 

[Ondath]

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.

Eh, no, this is paranoid. If WotC tried that to a 3PP, they'd get ganged on by dozens of amicus curiae who have a vested interest in keeping Creative Commons as is. This was narrower with OGL.

I mean, this is as likely as a future nuclear war making current American copyright law obsolete and making CC unenforceable. Sure, there is an incredibly contrived hypothetical scenario where it could happen, but the things needed to get there are so crazy that we'd probably have bigger worries (like everything that currently relies on CC from Wikipedia to other things crumbling).

 

[Maxperson]

In most countries, the lower has to everyone's legal fees...which means that people are somewhat reluctant to bring frivolous lawsuits on the offchance there will be a settlement, which is The American Way.

Yep. They will do it in America, and they will choose a state where the laws are more favorable to them.

 

[Parmandur]

Irrelevant. That doesn't stop them from declaring it so and engaging in acts designed to intimidate small guys out of the market.

The difference is that they have zero chance with CC: with the OGL, they have been able to win in court based on the license terms. Now, they won't try with the OGL again, because they absolutely cannot with CC.

 

[Parmandur]

Eh, no, this is paranoid. If WotC tried that to a 3PP, they'd get ganged on by dozens of amicus curiae who have a vested interest in keeping Creative Commons as is. This was narrower with OGL.

I mean, this is as likely as a future nuclear war making current American copyright law obsolete and making CC unenforceable. Sure, there is an incredibly contrived hypothetical scenario where it could happen, but the things needed to get there are so crazy that we'd probably have bigger worries (like everything that currently relies on CC from Wikipedia to other things crumbling).

Nuclear war is way less out there!

 

[Parmandur]

Yep. They will do it in America, and they will choose a state where the laws are more favorable to them.

Too many stakeholders will defend CC: the OGL was bush league, and they own it.

 

[Maxperson]

The difference is that they have zero chance with CC: with the OGL, they have been able to win in court based on the license terms. Now, they won't try with the OGL again, because they absolutely cannot with CC.

They don't need to win to win. The threat is enough to drive many away. Further, you don't even need a chance to win to drive a small guy under with legal fees. Most won't even fight.

 

[Maxperson]

Too many stakeholders will defend CC: the OGL was bush league, and they own it.

Again, they aren't going up against CC.

 

[Ondath]

Again, they aren't going up against CC.

Are you sure? Creative Commons demands that its license be used in a very specific way, and I'm sure they could sue Wizards if they tried to pull such shenanigans because they'd technically be misusing CC's copyrighted license, and breaking their own contract to CC by misapplying the terms.