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

 

[pemerton]

But doesn't that section also say "even if you stop distributing, people can use your content as long as they follow the attribution guidelines"? I remember us talking about this very same point yesterday!

Yes it does. Because they think their "automatic offer" mechanism works. I'm still trying to work out how it works, and as per my post just upthread am yet to find an account of it. The only detailed discussions I've seen express doubts! (Which is intellectually comforting to me, because it makes me feel more comfortable with my own doubts; but doesn't seem to me to provide much comfort to those who think CC is more robust than OGL.)

 

[Maxperson]

Isn't unauthorised use of someone's copyright grounds for damages?

Sure. Because there are real monetary damages involved.

Creative Commons holds the copyright to their license.

WotC wouldn't be copying and using their license, so copyright wouldn't apply.

Using the license in a way that's counter to the way CC designated (i.e., trying to go after someone who should've had the right to use your content) sounds like unauthorised use of copyrighted content to me.

No. It could potentially be a contract breach if they have a contract, but I don't know if they do. But unless WotC is actually using a copy(or something substantially similar) of their license, it's not a copyright issue. Plus, there might be genuine legal grounds to challenge CC, but unless WotC sues CC it wouldn't be CC fighting it. Unless of course CC decides to put money into the fight on behalf of whoever was being sued, but that's iffy. Especially since WotC doesn't actually have to sue anyone. They can just make the claim and send out C&D letters. That would cause enough uncertainty to cause what is happening now.

 

[Ondath]

@pemerton the quotes got borked so I won't quote the post, but thanks for clarifying your view. I see that the case for automatic offers still working for new licensees once the original licensor withdraws their offer is an open question.

However, I'd say the spirit of what Creative Commons is trying to do is quite clear. Sure, that's no basis for law, but in practical concerns I think it would guide people's expectations - as well as what they'd be willing to defend in court and push for new legislation if your theory ends up being upheld. I can't imagine large actors like Wikimedia Foundation being too happy with the idea of the CC-licensed content they're using being suddenly unavailable for new users, or Google accepting the risk that a future successor of Linus Torvalds can withdraw the offer for the Linux kernel and make new versions of Android impossible to make. There's just too much at stake.

 

[pemerton]

It feels like of the CC side lost it would keep getting appealed

Litigation often - not always, but often - turns on the facts.

The facts in a dispute with WotC would be very different from those involving software, I think (see my reply to @Ondath not far upthread).

So this is not clear to me.

 

[Haplo781]

What would your reply to them be?

"You're about to get sued by the entire publishing industry."

 

[pemerton]

@pemerton the quotes got borked so I won't quote the post, but thanks for clarifying your view. I see that the case for automatic offers still working for new licensees once the original licensor withdraws their offer is an open question.

However, I'd say the spirit of what Creative Commons is trying to do is quite clear. Sure, that's no basis for law, but in practical concerns I think it would guide people's expectations - as well as what they'd be willing to defend in court and push for new legislation if your theory ends up being upheld. I can't imagine large actors like Wikimedia Foundation being too happy with the idea that the Cc-licensed content they're using being suddenly unavailable for new users, or Google accepting the risk that a future successor of Linux Torvalds can withdraw the offer for the Linux kernel and make new versions of Android impossible to make. There's just too much at stake.

Sure. This is where the full range of legal considerations - interconnected contracts constraining who can withdraw which offers; estoppels; etc - all become relevant.

They're relevant to the OGL too!

Maybe I need to make my view clearer: I'm not hear to shoot down the CC. Rather, I think people are unreasonably declaring the OGL "dead".

 

[Ondath]

WotC wouldn't be copying and using their license, so copyright wouldn't apply.

Wizards did copy and use their license by releasing SRD 5.1-CC. I can't see any difference between putting the CC disclaimer and putting an OGL disclaimer, and the OGL was WotC's copyright. Just as I couldn't write
(WRITTEN FOR PARODY PURPOSES)

OPEN GAMING LICENSE V1.0A

By accepting this license, you admit that Dyan Rancy is a poopoopeepee who shouldn't have released our IP

in my serious OGL disclaimer (since that would be breaching WotC's copyrighted license text!), I can't see how WotC could release a work under CC-BY then try to enforce a rule that CC doesn't allow and not expect CC to sue them.

 

[Maxperson]

Wizards did copy and use their license by releasing SRD 5.1-CC. I can't see any difference between putting the CC disclaimer and putting an OGL disclaimer, and the OGL was WotC's copyright. Just as I couldn't write

They did it in a valid way, though. Challenging it later wouldn't be breaking that valid use.

In my serious OGL disclaimer (since that would be breaching WotC's copyrighted license text!), I can't see how WotC could release a work under CC-BY then try to enforce a rule that CC doesn't allow and not expect CC to sue them.

It wouldn't necessarily be a breach. Contracts are challenged all the time and often the contract of portions or it are declared invalid.

 

[pemerton]

I can't see how WotC could release a work under CC-BY then try to enforce a rule that CC doesn't allow and not expect CC to sue them.

CC has some clear statements about this: Policies - Creative Commons.

 

[Ondath]

CC has some clear statements about this: Policies - Creative Commons.

So CC does say you will be breaching their trademark (which is different from copyright, of course) if you try to add extra terms to your license (which might apply to the case of WotC hypothetically saying "New users can't use the SRD 5.1 once we stop making the offer"). Whether CC would win if they did this is the crux of our discussion with pemerton, but the earlier point is clear: CC would take legal action against WotC for misusing their trademark if they did what @Maxperson suggests.