More than a year since Dungeons & Dragons’ publisher relinquished its publicly maligned fight to change the popular tabletop RPG’s Open Gaming License, Wizards of the Coast has announced that its upcoming rulebooks will release their material under a Creative Commons licence.
A new System Reference Document, called SRD 5.2 by Wizards, will collect all of the new and updated core material printed in the 2024 editions of the Players’ Handbook, Dungeon Master’s Guide and Monster Manual. This includes all class features, monsters, rules expressions and anything that isn’t trademarked as intellectual property. Essentially, you get mechanics for cover but not Beholders, martial archetypes but not the city and denizens of Baldur’s Gate.
Releasing this material under a CC-BY-4.0 Creative Commons licence makes good on a promise Wizards made back in 2023, when players and critics protested the company’s attempt to lock down the OGL. Ostensibly done to protect Wizards’ IP and strengthen access for third-party creators, many feared the result would be a walled garden where Wizards - and thus Hasbro - controlled anything created under D&D’s legal banner.
I wasn't sure where to post this but since I know the OGL is of utmost concern to the community, I thought it was worth sharing. Hopefully this isn't a redundant post.
I I often call out Wizards for their terrible PR, so I feel obligated to also compliment them when they do a good job. This is exactly what their PR team should be doing. They provided an update well in advance, they gave an understandable justification for why the SRD will not release in September (and thus get ahead of “where is the SRD for the revised edition?” confusion), and, in a part not included above, they provide an update on the release of prior editions’ content (still in the works, but the focus has been on the 2024 revisions, so they will revisit those older editions after this release finishes up).
Keeping players updated well in advance and offering reasonable explanations for delays to things players might be excited about are both hallmarks of good customer relations. Here’s hoping that, as we approach the 2024 release, Wizards will endeavor to be this forthright and transparent with the many other major updates the community is eagerly awaiting.
The one dark spot for me in this otherwise great announcement is that no SRD 5.2 until 2025 likely also means no new Basic Rules until 2025. I was hopeful that the monster manual's long delay was due to art and typesetting and that we'd have at least the SRD/Basic monsters updated before then to throw at our shiny new 2024 PCs, but that doesn't seem like it'll be the case.
It's not a big deal by any means, I have no problem using MPMM or even 2014 monster design against the much stronger core PCs we'll be getting this year.
EDIT: I was wrong, it turns out 5e Basic predated the SRD. Huzzah! Now I just need to remain hopeful that they can do that again.
First, nice to have the heads up on general timeline on changes, considering they will take a full year from now to be implemented.
Not surprised however, that former SRD’s will also likely be pushed after the SRD 5.x is, personally I’m not even phased at the wording of after a 5.x SRD is released they will BEGIN the older SRD review for submission. ( I have digital and printed copies of previous SRD’s 3.0/3.5 so not worried on that front. )
This won’t be dual licensed under CC and OGL? Why?/
Because there is no reason to use both. Creative Commons does everything the OGL did, but better - it provides stronger, more expansive rights and is not as legally poorly written as the OGL is.
And given that even the really, really good second revision draft we saw after the initial revision draft that set the community on fire was still shot down purely on the basis of not being the original, there's no point in them trying to update the OGL anytime soon.
This won’t be dual licensed under CC and OGL? Why?/
Because there is no reason to use both. Creative Commons does everything the OGL did, but better - it provides stronger, more expansive rights and is not as legally poorly written as the OGL is.
And given that even the really, really good second revision draft we saw after the initial revision that draft set the community on fire was still shot down purely on the basis of not being the original, there's no point in them trying to update the OGL anytime soon.
They're just going to revoke/deauthorize it, once doing so won't drown out any key new books in the inevitably hysterical headlines that result. Presumably this will happen after all the relevant SRDs are in Creative Commons. And once they are, good riddance, we can put this specter to bed once and for all.
Well, what about all the content out there now under the OGL? They'd need to re-license under Creative Commons to use the new SRD. A dual license would be better.
Well, what about all the content out there now under the OGL? They'd need to re-license under Creative Commons to use the new SRD. A dual license would be better.
I think you might not really understand how these licenses work. The licenses are automatic - by publishing SRD content, you automatically are agreeing to the license. If a company operating under the OGL license continues to publish their OGL content, they continue to operate under that license (and under Creative Commons, since the OGL content was all put in the Commons). If they update their content to the new SRD, they automatically are using Creative Commons.
There is literally no legal reason to have both licenses out there.
I mean, they wouldn't need it for existing content since it's already covered under the OGL; all WotC has to do is say that offer is no longer being extended going forward, but it remains in effect for everything that already claimed it in perpetuity, as described in that license. Going forward anything produced would need to claim whatever the new license is, but after the blowup last time WotC is not going to want to bring fresh heat on their heads for something as pointless as quibbling over stuff that they've already let be published for years. Frankly, I'll be shocked if anything really changes for 3rd party stuff but the blurb citing the appropriate license.
I'm pleased by this announcement, but it always seems like one step forward two steps back when dealing with WotC. The changes to the marketplace are a counterbalance to any of the good things like SRD 5.2 and adding third party content to DDB.
This is supposed to be a tool to help players and GMs play their games more easily, and sometimes they get it right (maps etc) but they just as often get it wrong.
And remember, SRD 5.2 will not replace 5.1, creators will be able to use either or both of them. I hope WotC lives up to their commitment to add earlier versions of the SRD to the Creative Commons, and create CC versions of all of the previous editions of D&D (as they promised)
If someone is publishing currently under the ODL, they cannot use SRD 5.2, unless they take all their content and also license it under Creative Commons.
If someone is publishing currently under the ODL, they cannot use SRD 5.2, unless they take all their content and also license it under Creative Commons.
Wring again. The choice to release new content using the new SRD has absolutely no bearing on your previous-existing licenses. Not really sure where you got this idea - they might cover similar content and be released by the same company, but they are different reference documents and can exist under independent licenses.
If you want to say you are only releasing 5.1 content under OGL you can do so and still simultaneously release content 5.2 content under Creative Commons. There is a number of legal reasons that you would look like a bit of a fool, but you could still do so and be permitted to publish 5.2 content.
If someone is publishing currently under the ODL, they cannot use SRD 5.2, unless they take all their content and also license it under Creative Commons.
CC-BY is not a share-alike license, you are not required to release derivative works under the same license as the SRD, you just need to preserve the requirements on any actual SRD text you include. The original OGL was clearly GNU-inspired and thus wanted to be a share-alike license but mostly failed at that.
Now, if you want a license that's likely to get you in trouble... that would be Paizo's ORC license, because it is copyleft.
Best words of advice, listen to a PROFESSIONAL LAWYER on any use of any type of license. They know far better than most of the keyboard lawyers, and save you more than just headaches by not being objective about what your seeking to do.
So since there's only four classes under the free rules Does that mean those are the only four classes that are going to be under the creative Commons? For example I cannot create a subclass for my own supplement cell for a druid or a bard?
So since there's only four classes under the free rules Does that mean those are the only four classes that are going to be under the creative Commons? For example I cannot create a subclass for my own supplement cell for a druid or a bard?
Until they release the 5.2 SRD (expected 2025) or otherwise specifically release it, none of the 2024 content is under creative commons. The 2024 SRD is likely to contain the same list of classes and subclasses as the 2014 SRD.
The free rules currently released are only a preview. There's an article on the DDB homepage that says the other classes come out on the free rules on 17 September
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
From here: https://www.dicebreaker.com/games/dungeons-and-dragons-5e/news/dungeons-and-dragons-2024-srd-wont-be-another-ogl-fiasco
Excerpt:
I wasn't sure where to post this but since I know the OGL is of utmost concern to the community, I thought it was worth sharing. Hopefully this isn't a redundant post.
I I often call out Wizards for their terrible PR, so I feel obligated to also compliment them when they do a good job. This is exactly what their PR team should be doing. They provided an update well in advance, they gave an understandable justification for why the SRD will not release in September (and thus get ahead of “where is the SRD for the revised edition?” confusion), and, in a part not included above, they provide an update on the release of prior editions’ content (still in the works, but the focus has been on the 2024 revisions, so they will revisit those older editions after this release finishes up).
Keeping players updated well in advance and offering reasonable explanations for delays to things players might be excited about are both hallmarks of good customer relations. Here’s hoping that, as we approach the 2024 release, Wizards will endeavor to be this forthright and transparent with the many other major updates the community is eagerly awaiting.
-
View User Profile
-
View Posts
-
Send Message
D&D StaffThe full FAQ is here if you'd like to read it: 2024 Core Rulebooks to Expand the SRD
Your Friendly Neighborhood Community Manager (she/her)
You can call me LT. :)
CM Hat On | CM Hat Off
Generally active from 9am - 6pm CDT [GMT-5].
Thank you for your patience if you message me outside of those hours!
Useful Links: Site Rules & Guidelines | D&D Educator Resources | Change Your Nickname | Submit a Support Ticket
The one dark spot for me in this otherwise great announcement is that no SRD 5.2 until 2025 likely also means no new Basic Rules until 2025.I was hopeful that the monster manual's long delay was due to art and typesetting and that we'd have at least the SRD/Basic monsters updated before then to throw at our shiny new 2024 PCs, but that doesn't seem like it'll be the case.It's not a big deal by any means, I have no problem using MPMM or even 2014 monster design against the much stronger core PCs we'll be getting this year.
EDIT: I was wrong, it turns out 5e Basic predated the SRD. Huzzah! Now I just need to remain hopeful that they can do that again.
First, nice to have the heads up on general timeline on changes, considering they will take a full year from now to be implemented.
Not surprised however, that former SRD’s will also likely be pushed after the SRD 5.x is, personally I’m not even phased at the wording of after a 5.x SRD is released they will BEGIN the older SRD review for submission. ( I have digital and printed copies of previous SRD’s 3.0/3.5 so not worried on that front. )
Well, at least we got a heads up, so its a start.
This won’t be dual licensed under CC and OGL? Why?/
Because there is no reason to use both. Creative Commons does everything the OGL did, but better - it provides stronger, more expansive rights and is not as legally poorly written as the OGL is.
And given that even the really, really good second revision draft we saw after the initial revision draft that set the community on fire was still shot down purely on the basis of not being the original, there's no point in them trying to update the OGL anytime soon.
CC has also been tested in court, unlike the OGL.
They're just going to revoke/deauthorize it, once doing so won't drown out any key new books in the inevitably hysterical headlines that result. Presumably this will happen after all the relevant SRDs are in Creative Commons. And once they are, good riddance, we can put this specter to bed once and for all.
Well, what about all the content out there now under the OGL? They'd need to re-license under Creative Commons to use the new SRD. A dual license would be better.
I think you might not really understand how these licenses work. The licenses are automatic - by publishing SRD content, you automatically are agreeing to the license. If a company operating under the OGL license continues to publish their OGL content, they continue to operate under that license (and under Creative Commons, since the OGL content was all put in the Commons). If they update their content to the new SRD, they automatically are using Creative Commons.
There is literally no legal reason to have both licenses out there.
I mean, they wouldn't need it for existing content since it's already covered under the OGL; all WotC has to do is say that offer is no longer being extended going forward, but it remains in effect for everything that already claimed it in perpetuity, as described in that license. Going forward anything produced would need to claim whatever the new license is, but after the blowup last time WotC is not going to want to bring fresh heat on their heads for something as pointless as quibbling over stuff that they've already let be published for years. Frankly, I'll be shocked if anything really changes for 3rd party stuff but the blurb citing the appropriate license.
I'm pleased by this announcement, but it always seems like one step forward two steps back when dealing with WotC. The changes to the marketplace are a counterbalance to any of the good things like SRD 5.2 and adding third party content to DDB.
This is supposed to be a tool to help players and GMs play their games more easily, and sometimes they get it right (maps etc) but they just as often get it wrong.
And remember, SRD 5.2 will not replace 5.1, creators will be able to use either or both of them. I hope WotC lives up to their commitment to add earlier versions of the SRD to the Creative Commons, and create CC versions of all of the previous editions of D&D (as they promised)
If someone is publishing currently under the ODL, they cannot use SRD 5.2, unless they take all their content and also license it under Creative Commons.
Wring again. The choice to release new content using the new SRD has absolutely no bearing on your previous-existing licenses. Not really sure where you got this idea - they might cover similar content and be released by the same company, but they are different reference documents and can exist under independent licenses.
If you want to say you are only releasing 5.1 content under OGL you can do so and still simultaneously release content 5.2 content under Creative Commons. There is a number of legal reasons that you would look like a bit of a fool, but you could still do so and be permitted to publish 5.2 content.
CC-BY is not a share-alike license, you are not required to release derivative works under the same license as the SRD, you just need to preserve the requirements on any actual SRD text you include. The original OGL was clearly GNU-inspired and thus wanted to be a share-alike license but mostly failed at that.
Now, if you want a license that's likely to get you in trouble... that would be Paizo's ORC license, because it is copyleft.
Best words of advice, listen to a PROFESSIONAL LAWYER on any use of any type of license. They know far better than most of the keyboard lawyers, and save you more than just headaches by not being objective about what your seeking to do.
So since there's only four classes under the free rules Does that mean those are the only four classes that are going to be under the creative Commons? For example I cannot create a subclass for my own supplement cell for a druid or a bard?
Until they release the 5.2 SRD (expected 2025) or otherwise specifically release it, none of the 2024 content is under creative commons. The 2024 SRD is likely to contain the same list of classes and subclasses as the 2014 SRD.
The free rules currently released are only a preview. There's an article on the DDB homepage that says the other classes come out on the free rules on 17 September